Monday, April 10, 2006

U.S. Planning Military Strikes on Iran

This is an issue I'm somewhat torn on. Something needs to be done about the growing threat in Iran, but the U.S. is not prepared to go to war with Iran. Our military resources are already spread too thin. The U.N. will most likely never come together on the issue to put International military pressure on Iran. What do we do?

There has been a lot of talk over the weekend about the possibility of a preemptive nuclear strike on nuclear research facilities in Iran. I for one, hope this does not move out of the talking phase. This would be the worst mistake, in a long series of serious mistakes, that our President could make. This would do nothing but cause more anger direct at the U.S., and could potentially contaminate an area where we already have thousands of our young men and women stationed.

That is my take on the situation. Please let me know what you think.

5 comments:

BlackLabelAxe said...

The good thing about Iran is that they are no threat whatsoever to our forces. We don't need a ground campaign at all; a series of airstrikes would neutralize the nuclear threat.

The airstrikes would be difficult, but we would succeed without any casualties. Our Air Force and Navy can blow up anything anywhere in the world in a ridiculously short amount of time. The ordinance of choice may have to be smaller-scale nuclear weapons in order to penetrate the fortifications that the Iranians have no doubt installed to protect their investment. These tactical, or battlefield nukes produce much smaller amounts of radiation, and focus the damage more precisely on where it needs to be damaged. It's unfortunate, but so is Iran having a nuclear weapon.

There is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that if that asshole president of Iran had a nuke at his disposal, not even one week would pass before he fired it at Israel. Israel may strike first, which is a move that I can't blame them for. They have a right to exist just like Iran does (I'm sorry for the border wars, but it happened 60 years ago, so it's time to move on).

It does make me worry that this isn't a problem that the Bush White House has pushed to the front based on the same faulty intellegence that we used in 2002. The UN is a worthless paper tiger that avoids any global issues that don't have to do with making money for the ambassadors, so we know damn right they won't get it done.

If it needs to be done, then let's do it and do it right, for the right reasons. I'm just a little bit more than skeptical about this when a member of the IAEA speaks out saying, "these people aren't looking for a solution, they're looking for a crisis!" Again, I don't trust UN people with the final word on anything at all, but it's worth looking in to for sure.

BigNewsDay said...

As much as I hate war and dislike the current administration, I do feel we need to act fairly quickly on this matter. If we don't Israel will, and that will stir up a bunch of shit in the area. I think we could probably drop a couple of MOABs or Daisy Cutters on their ass and be done with it. Iran is a hell of a lot bigger of a threat than Iraq has been since Desert Storm.

BlackLabelAxe said...

With the fortifications protecting the underground location of the radiactive material, I'm afraid conventional weapons may not be able to get the job done. They knew we'd plan airstrikes, so they have done their best to protect themselves from it.

It's ironic that we'd have to use nukes to prevent another nation from having nukes, but that's what we have to do.

The reason I feel that a tactical (smaller, less radiation, nobody else knows that it's a nuke) nuclear warhead-equipped missile or bomb would be right for the job is the fact that a MOAB or a Daisy Cutter have to be delivered by a large, slow, non-stealthy aircraft like a C-130, or MAYBE a C-17, although they've never used anything but a C-130 to deliver the cargo. Based on the sophistication of the lovely Chinese and French-built surface-to-air missile system the Iranians have, a C-130 would probably be shot down, even with the best possible counter-measures by our fighter pilots.

Tactical nukes can be dropped by our flying ghosts (B-2 Spirit, F-117 Nighthawk, B-1B Lancer), and are in only remote danger of being destroyed by ground fire and missiles. The mission would be perfectly stealthy so they wouldn't even know what's happening until the bombs hit.

BlackLabelAxe said...

However, what I'd really appreciate is if Iran would recognize the awesome responsability that comes with the awesome power that the atom is capable of. Cooler heads always prevail in a showdown, which is why the world as we know it still exists.

All it takes is one asshole with his finger on a button to ruin it for everybody.

If the Iranian president wants to play the "tuff-religious-guy" game, now we can actually strike and make it look like a nuclear meltdown.

But again, hopefully with this realization of great power, the leadership of that country will rise to the occasion and become respectable partners in peace. I won't even begin to assign odds to that statement, I'm just trying to be optimistic.

Goremaster said...

yup.
super dickhead dubya is at it again!