Posted on 11/13/2011 1:17:21 PM PST by yup2394871293
The Iranians have been begging to be nuked since November, 1979. I say grant them their wish.
An EMP over the nuke plants and a couple over power plants and game over for 10 years.
Yup, we’ve ignored Iran for too long. Like ignoring a lump under the armpit that turns out to be cancer.
Bringing them to heel even ten years ago might have been cheap. Now the price will be high indeed.
Non-proliferation would work a whole lot better of the dictators developing the technology had a tendency to disappear in a cloud of radioactive dust.
This sort of approach would probably have had to be applied only a couple times before people got the message -- and the result would have been a late 20th century world with a single nuclear power. Things would have been better.
And I say the opportunity is not yet totally lost. Iran should be used as an object lesson -- it's too big to invade. We cannot hope to win a ground war there. So: let's nuke it.
The emp from a nuke would knock out electronics for hundreds miles except for hardened targets!
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ― Henry Ford
Ah no they couldn't. No bases in the region to launch such an attack from. Also impossible to squash Iran while leaving Iraq untouched on our flank.
Afganistan (which borders Iran?)
Does the US have EMP weapons of this power in their arsenal?
American Military Forces could certainly defeat Iranian forces and win a war there.
IF WE FOUGHT IT AS WE DID WW2. TO WIN. TO DESTROY THE ENEMY, THEIR CITIES, THEIR ABILITY TO WAGE WAR.
We stopped doing that once we went into Vietnam.
The enviro-whacko's and MSM have over-hyped the dangers of nukes and most folks don't want to let that Genie out of the bottle.
Nagasaki, Hiroshima, even Chernobyl and the latest Japan incidents didn't produce the longterm massive devestation that was hyped.
Seems to me that the same argument could have been used against Operation Enduring Freedom and the Iraq war.
What about N. Korea?
They can dial down the blast yield on a conventional nuke and have it detonate high in the atmosphere over the target. There were tests conducted on this back in the 50’s and 60’s, but they were mainly to study the effects such blasts (from a nuke exchange with the USSR) would have on the US.
I guess our government generally thinks that would set a bad precedent.
You might be able to take out the grid that powers the underground bunkers, but they might be able to jury-rig something to keep their efforts going.
Explode it at low altitude and the footprint will be smaller. An EMP bunker buster would be interesting.
In my lifetime, all of these approaches have been taken off the table. There seems to be no acceptable replacement, and we no longer have any real strategy for "winning" a war. We just fight until we lose the political will, then we come home.
We need to relearn what works: The old ways are the best ways.
You’ve got that right. Once we stopped fighting wars to win, we started having troubles. With Iran, the stated goal should be that we intend to break things and kill Iranian soldiers and terrorists. We should clearly state we will not be rebuilding Iran only destroying its military and nuclear capabilities. I would also add that we should take out every government palace, house, vacation spot where that nutjob goes.
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.