Target Iran - Air Strike Options

Globalsecurity ^

[Jim Noble]

Air strikes don't work, and air power divorced from ground and sea power is a dangerous myth.

If we want to compel Iran, the country will have to be invaded, conquered, and occupied for fifty years.

I happen to think that's a good idea, and that we should.

But I'm quite sure Congress does not.

[sgtbono2002]

Dont forget to attack Ahmadinejhad's house and that of Mullah Khameini. Without these two we wouldnt be attacking anyone.

[elhombrelibre]

As I see it, this is the most significant point ..."or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq." This should not be a slap that slows the WMD program. It should be a punishing blow to a terror-supporting state that aids in the killing of US servicemen in Iraq. It should be a blow that is a sustained air campaign that destroys Iran's military infrastructure and assures it cannot retaliate in way that will harm the regions security. It should be the death knell to Iran's mad mullahs aspirations of Iranian hegemony in the region.

[elhombrelibre]

Ping

[greasepaint]

Bush is weak.
He will not get Nancy's permission.

[SteveMcKing]

One ploy to wake people up at the moment would be to start selling burkas and prayers mats in some highly visible manner... show them at malls, ballgames, or a fashion show.

If nothing works soon, then it won't be just a ploy.

[Eagles6]

"Insufficient information regarding available aircraft makes it impossible to predict how many Joint Direct Attack Munition capable aircraft were available for strikes and how many potential aim points this would provide to mission planners."

This info hasn't been on the front of the nyt yet? I'm shocked!

[johnny7]

Air strikes don't work...

They won't address the underlying problem... state-sponsored, fundamentalist-Islam. At best, you'll retard their progress by getting them to declare war on us and officially attacking our interests/troops/civilians around the world. It will also flush out the 'skunks-in-the-woodpile'... nations who would prefer to see the west emasculated by any means. And that's when we settle 'the-problem-with-Islam'... for once and for all.

It's going to have to start sometime... and I would rather it start BEFORE we lose a major city or two.

[upchuck]

BUMP to what you wrote.

If it ain't gonna be comprehensive, vicious and nasty, why even bother?

[word_warrior_bob]

We need to do something there, the sooner the better, the bigger the better. Call me crazy but I'm for targeted nukes at their nulear sites, major cities and any place their leader may be. We'll sort out the damage later.

He's threatened to wipe away Israel and the U.S. Do we choose to believe him or take our chances? I would like to leave chance out of it since I'm sure he would share technology with any and all of our enemies.

The destruction of Iran would send the wake up call that the radicals need, wait until President Hillary in 2008 and the progress they would make in her administration would really put us behind the eight ball.

We can't risk doing nothing and hoping a Republican wins in 2008. If the democrats win you know they'll do nothing, we're at a critical junction and it may be up to Bush and Bush only to cut the threat off at the knees before it grows too great that we're unable to defend ourselves.

[Vermont Lt]

I get a little concerned if we are wrong. If they have purchased a bomb, or have already made one, we are putting out naval eggs in a pretty small basket. All we need to do is get a few carriers in the gulf and then they lob a nuke on the area and we got some big problems.

I fear we may be getting suckered into a gun fight, but we think its a knife fight.

[TomasUSMC]

Four Words.

eye
see
be
em

[Joe Boucher]

Speculation is great, but let's see some action before Iran gets and uses nukes on Israel.

[TomasUSMC]

Exactly!

We can't continue to handcuff our troops with KGC rules of war (Kinder Gentler Compassionate). All this crap about proportionality is killing our troops faster now than ever.

For the first time Coalition forces have lost 77 or more troops per month for 4 consecutive months. We are in the Nuclear Age and we need to kill them by the train loads with Nukes.

Or we can stand by and hope that Democracy will win over their moslem contaminated minds... and we will still be wishing that when their nukes hit US.

[word_warrior_bob]

That's what I keep saying, we're going to LET an American City get nuked first to impress everyone who HATES us how restrained we are, great strategy.

Either you believe him or you don't. I believe him. It seems like too many people don't.

That puts us in the uncomfortable position of hoping YOUR city gets nuked instead of mine. I don't like that position.

[The Great RJ]

The US now has the capability to hit pin point targets with special non nuclear versions of the Trident missle. Far better than risking US pilots and best of all no warning...just a zot from the heavens.

However, any military action against Iran would result in Bush's immediate impeachment by Queen Nancy and her flying monkey army. We will unfortunately have to live with a nuclear armed Iran with a madman's finger on the trigger and I'm sorry to say a possible nuclear Pearl Harbor before the US will do anything.

[Jim Noble]

it may be up to Bush and Bush only to cut the threat off at the knees

This is a constitutionalist website.

Bush has no such authority.

[observer5]

Naaaaah, lets just wait another 10 years ir so, until they have better defences or have the bomb!

[word_warrior_bob]

You're not getting the gist of what I'm saying, perhaps I should have worded it better.