Posted on 02/04/2006 5:48:25 PM PST by blam
the rhetoric regarding use of nuclear weapons.
let's put it this way, do you believe that as soon as iran is capable of assembling and mounting a handful of (untested) warheads on missiles, that they will launch a first strike with those weapons at whatever regional targets they can reach? do you believe they will do that?
if they did do that, I will admit that their rhetoric on this topic was not bluster.
so let's say I am wrong, and they use their nukes first - what happens next? exactly what strategy does iran further by launching first?
If bin Laden was at Tora Bora, it was luck. He thought America was a paper tiger, and did not expect an interventionist response. (After the Clinton response of cruise missiles, why should he have?)
OBL: "After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians," bin Laden said. "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html
"what happens next? exactly what strategy does iran further by launching first?"
Praise be to God! God is Great! Thanks to God's boundless love and justice, the Jews have been destroyed! Allah willing, the Mahdi will return very soon now!
Thanks. It is addictive. I bought this computer just so I could log onto FR. Best to you & yours too.
Nutcases don't have strategies.
Why do you assume that the leaders of Iran are sane in the first place?
I think so and I'd like to your (and any other FReepers') views on the military situation. Apparently these nuclear construction sites are numerous, underground, and some near populated areas. Most military people seem to think that any attack would be aerial and at least retard (if not destroy) their capacity; and, that we'd need some key allies for the logistics. I hope it doesn't have to come to that but I have little faith in the Security Council and NONE in the mullahs. I think the worst scenario would be for them to play at negotiations and stall for time like N.Korea did with the (Clinton) Agreed Framework -- then, suddenly, SURPRISE! We have enriched uranium and the delivery capacity and now we're untouchable! And any attack on Iran would alienate the pro-American population. But war will probably be the lesser of the evils.
I far prefer to see option 1 than 2.
However, I am damn sick of reading stupid rah-rah about how quick and easy an air campaign will be.
I don't even think the conventional bunker busters can penetrate some of these facilities. what happens then?
I am attempting to provide a counterweight view to the imbecilic rah-rah "bomb 'em tomorrow, home by tomorrow night" opinion seen here that holds that after a few dozen quick sorties by the USAF Iran will fall on its back, waving a white flag and begging for mercy.
In case you missed the big airplane picture, the caption was:
"Why don't *we* act now and put an end to this charade?"
#30: Exactly my point. Even if we are forced to preempt Iran before they go nuclear, you can bet that most of the world and half of Americans will bitterly attck the USA when oil goes past $7 a gallon, and we have to find another 500,000 troops ASAP for the widening land war in the middle east.
He is also convinced that a successful subsidy published tome allows him to pontificate in areas far beyond his myopic knowledge.
Semper Disgusted
I don't know what is going to trigger the shooting, but I am convinced that Ahmadinejad's strategy is to goad us into a war. He doesn't need to WIN the war to achieve his goal (global war, economic collapse etc) he only needs to START it.
If the Hormuz is plugged for even one month, during that time futures traders will have no idea when if ever shipping will resume.
If 30% of the world's petroleum is removed from global trade, the risk of a systemic economic collapse is very real. $200 or $300 dollar oil will explode in finely calibrated trillion dollar hedge funds and derivatives like an economic atomic bomb. Our larges banks will collapse if these hedge funds and derivatives collapse.
This is Ahmadinejad's goal. We must be very careful here not to go rushing in like the Charge of the Light Brigade.
The rest of them don't matter. Ahmadeinejad has the only vote that counts, and he is driven by an apocolyptic vision.
It's pretty amazing that the Mullahs have managed to endanger world peace to this extent WITHOUT THE HELP of the peanut farmer!
well, that argues for a decapitation strike then.
So tell us how we are going to find 100s of mobile cruise missiles, hidden across a rugged 600 mile arc of southern Iran, when we never found or destroyed one single much larger Scud in the open desert of western Iraq?
That was a very top priority during Desert Storm, when we had absolute mastery of the sky for a solid month. Everything from Keyholes to the SAS was thrown into that search. Result: zero Scuds confirmed found and destroyed before launch.
So please, tell me how we will safeguard the oil tankers, if Ahmadinejad orders the Hormuz to be blockaded?
Let us all know, oh all knowing one.
(And in advance, if your answer is "our methods are better" my reply in advance is "so are their missiles and counter-counter measures.")
I don't think that even decapitation will necessarily succeed in forcing open the Hormuz. Not if the Iranians have a "loss of communications, standing orders" strategy, which we must assume they do.
That is, missile batteries of 3 or 4 mobile launchers would have their own spotter, with a hard wire telephone to them. The "standing orders" would read: "In the even of a loss of communications from HQ, wait X days after war begins, and then fire at the next target of opportunity in the Hormuz."
If they manage to pop off a few salvos a day, that will be enough to stop the flow of oil. This is Ahmadinejad's strategy, I believe. His goal is not to WIN a war, but only to START a war, and sow economic catastrophe.
You demonstrate the same faulted logic that the Hollywierd crowd does. Just because you wrote a somewhat stilted and altogether boring book, (yes I read it), that, in and of itself does not gift you with Jedi like knowledge on military matters. Your time was then. This is now.
I do not think that any war iseasy. To think so, is juvenile on its face. But so is unconditional denial, such as yours. I lived and worked Saudi Arabia and Qatar up to 2002. That doesn't give me any special insights any more than your word processor gives you. But, I DO know, that left unchecked, the Persian Islamics will run riot over the region, but, in your myopia, that is probably a good thing.
So, we will have to agree to disagree, but, it is my measured opinion that you don't have a clue as to what the Iranians capabilities are, beyond your "secret agent" mentality. I am entitled to my opinion, and to post same, just as you have repeatedly done. It is my opinion that you are a vacuous self-centered hack who lives in a delusional state of self-importance.
Good bye. Have a nice life. I will not respond any further to your posts.
Semper Severance
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.