Think 1st night of Desert Storm.
The plural of aircraft, is "aircraft", not aircrafts. Sheesh. And the B2 is the stealth bomber, not the marginally stealthy B1.
Credibility = 0
This is a witless piece of trash. Numerous reasons are given not to bomb Iran. And what's the downside if we don't bomb Iran? We might "endanger the environment"?
Oh, the horror!
Does this French idiot even considered what might happen if the fanatical leader of Iran, who thinks he's the Mahdi of the Last Days of the World, nukes Israel, or maybe New York and Los Angeles? Or would that help the environment by reducing the population?
It's foolish to study this problem only in a military context without pondering the economic fallout of a likely cutoff of all Persian Gulf crude for several weeks during and after an Iran campaign.
You can bet that an Iranian contingency plan is to fire conventional SCUDs at the Saudi oil terminals in the event they are attacked, as well as mining the Hormuz etc.
Burning tankers in the PG will lead to an immediate price surge to past $150 or even higher for crude. The economic consequences to futures, hedge funds and derivatives markets in incalculable, and could lead to a global financial meltdown.
Remember, this is Ahmadiniwakjob's ultimate goal: to cause global chaos, and bring on an islamic apocolypse leading to his worldwide caliphate. Whether he realizes his goal before or after he gets nukes is not important. A global economic catastrophe will suit his purposes nicely.
Any major war with Iran at this time (and a 300 target air campaign surely qualifies!) is likely to lead to economic fallout we cannot even imagine.
IF...Iran develops a nuclear warhead, and
IF...Iran mounts it on a North Korean misslie, and
IF...Iran launches that missile at Isreal, and
IF...The detonation takes place over, say, Haifa or Tel Aviv, and
IF...Hundreds of thousands, if not Millions, are killed,
WHAT?...IF, ANYTHING, will Isreal, US, EU, or UN do about it?
Strong condemnation?
A UN resolution #87465? Launch a nuclear attack on Iran? Remember there are millions in Iran that are innocent of their government's atrocities and would like to see them gone.
Just what would take place in the aftermath?...........
Anyhing from UPI is garbage.
An attack on Iran is not an all or nothing deal. People who say we can't affect them, that's Bull$hit. Despite dispersion, hardening and secrecy we surely can greatly affect the timeline and associated costs with developing an A-bomb. To the layperson it's a "yes" or "no" answer if an attack is effective. CNN will define what success is for the layperson. Reality is, we CAN bomb those reactors, we CAN bomb many facilities that are needed for them to produce a bomb. Will it be as easy as Israel had it in the early 80’s with Iraq – no. But we can have an effect on them
But there is another effect we can have. Create a “Cause and effect” relationship. Iran today works with impunity. Going after High Payoff targets within Iran should be done in a scope that extends BEYOND just nuclear sites but still limited to reduce Collateral Damage. If we go in, we should go after all kinds of nice to destroy targets. We should go in with the “intent” to break all the bad kids toys and make him cry. Create a causation. They operate on a different level than we do. Appeals to morals, values, international law, conventions are seen as weakness on our behalf. Breaking their toys they understand.
The one who is bluffing is “THEY”. What will Iran do that they are not doing already? Sponsor terrorist in Israel? Sponsor an insurgency in Iraq? Develop a nuke? If we bomb them, what will they do? Besides blowing hot air, they can’t do more than they already are. We are practically in a pseudo sate of war with Iran already! US SOF get seen in Iran, we kill some of their people in Iraq, US soldiers are dying at the hands of insurgents who are being equipped by Iran. Bombing Iran and doing so with the intent to follow through with a protracted bombing campaign “Balkan” style seems like a very good choice right about now.
Red6
I don't think the focus should be on the nuclear facilities anyway. The focus should be on regime change, by force if necessary. The rest will follow, and it's long overdue.
I actually read this stupid article, filled as it is with "what-if" scenarios. How about this scenario - Iran gets nukes and does exactly what they have always said they would do. It only proves that the problem, indeed, is the United States and Israel </sarcasm>