Replies

This thing seems to be getting further out of control by the day. I thought your post was quite interesting and have a couple of questions for you.
First, do you think that we (or the Israelis) can effectively wipe out the Iraninan's nuke program with conventional weapons? I have read alot of conflicting information in the last couple of days but I am getting the feeling that those facilities will not be effectively neutralized unless they are hit with nukes. It seems the only alternative would be a massive strike that would simultaneously decapitate the Iranian leadership structure and assault the nuclear facilities first with airstrikes and then with boots on the ground. Your thoughts?

Question 2 is this. Will the president take the political risk of acting pre-emptively? You, me, and I would hope that most of the folks on this board realize the calamity that a nuclear armed Iran would pose to the western world. I just dont know that the president can act pre-emptively now in almost any situation. The idiots on the left and in the media would destroy the president even though taking action seems completely warranted.
I agree that the U.S. is in a situation that is likely more precarious than 1941 or the Cuban Missle Crisis. The difference is that the media and the left seem to have turned a sizable chunk of the countries population against any type of action necessary to ensure our security.

It seems the only alternative would be a massive strike that would simultaneously decapitate the Iranian leadership structure and assault the nuclear facilities first with airstrikes and then with boots on the ground. Your thoughts?

I don't care to be too specific on this matter. During my military career I developed a healthy reluctance to discuss weapons systems and tactics in all but a very general way. It's a habit I find difficult to overcome. But we all know that the US has weapons systems that will never be disclosed to the American public, and of course not to the world, until some time after actual employment. However, systems such as the recently converted SSGN's with up to 154 cruise missiles each are good examples of the assets available for an approach such as the one describe in your comment.

Will the president take the political risk of acting pre-emptively? You, me, and I would hope that most of the folks on this board realize the calamity that a nuclear armed Iran would pose to the western world. I just dont know that the president can act pre-emptively now in almost any situation.

This is the hardest of questions. If leaders feel, after obtaining the best data and advice available, that their country is in grave danger from an external threat, they have a moral obligation to act. As to whether an individual leader would take the fateful steps, I have no idea. I seems to me that a great leader should at least give the world the clear impression that steps would be taken. I give Bush high marks for this.

... the media and the left seem to have turned a sizable chunk of the countries population against any type of action necessary to ensure our security.

The MSM is firmly in the hands of leftists who have been carefully taught for generations that their brains and special brand of humanity are all that are required to meet every challenge to the nation- internal or external. That's why the population must be constantly reminded that weakness breeds catastrophe. History bears this out; and any nation that ignores it does so at great peril.