"Nuke 'em. Nuke the bastards." - President Tom Whitmore
Posted on 04/08/2015 12:06:51 PM PDT by balch3
Washington (CNN)A U.S. military campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities would only take "several days" of bombing, Sen. Tom Cotton said Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
No problem, Tom. Take all the time you’d like.
Of course.
The flight,time of a silo and/or sub launched Mirv Icbm is fairly short. Go neutron bomb if the real estate is important.
Leaving only the months of ground combat and years of occupation.
Wouldn't that pretty much remove much of the worlds oil because of the radioactive fallout?
I wonder if Iran agrees to be bombed and to do nothing in return. It's not like Mullahs weren't warned years in advance.
At the very least the Strait of Hormuz will be mined and blocked, made not navigable by tankers for years. At the next level of response Israel will be seriously hurt. At the next level of response Iranian operatives abroad will carry out major acts of war - against the USA and against every other country that joins in. At the final level of response Iran will use the nukes that they have against pretty much anyone. Even "dirty bombs" can be used - and Iran has plenty of nuclear waste.
"Nuke 'em. Nuke the bastards." - President Tom Whitmore
No.
No; it would only remove Arab oil. Producers in Venezuela and Russia will be forced to demand any price they want. I'm sure they'd hate that :-)
Q: How long did Hiroshima have to be abandoned before it was once again inhabitable?
A: Trick question. Hiroshima was NEVER abandoned at any point following the atomic bombing, because it was NEVER uninhabitable.
I swear I see three faces in that picture.
Please explain the process(es) by which using nuclear weapons on Iran would render Middle-East oil unusable.
I only see Bozo the Clown.
If the goal is merely to disrupt the nuclear program, he’s probably right. But disruption is temporary and quantification is ...nearly impossible.
If we follow the last highly-flawed template. We did not do to Afghanistan or Iraq what Cotton suggests for Iran, take note; instead we got liberal-inspired nation-building and platitudes about the “religion of peace”.
Precisely correct.
Even the very, very deeply buried facilities could be disabled by taking out all water, air and electrical supplies. With good intelligence one could even know where all physical access points are.
And NOBODY can convince me that a sustained campaign, dozens or hundreds of sorties by B-1 and B-52 loaded with a variety of ordinance would not be able to complete destroy every last vestige of an Iranian Nuke program.
Unfortunately, Israel does not have sufficient ordinance carrying capacity to do this without resorting to Nukes or boots on the ground.
Why? It would not be necessary if all we want to do is destroy.
I think we could destroy everything in Iran that we need to in under 45 minutes. Sooner if you used an SSBN based in the Indian Ocean.
To what end. Nuke the sites and walk away from it.
That’s why the next stage has to be without nation building, but in this case nation-subduing.
Strategically speaking, occupying Afghanistan and Iraq would have been the first stages of taking out Iran, surrounding the country. But that was squandered in favor of appeasement of the “religion of peace” and allowing both occupied countries to rebuild Islamic governments with Islamic constitutions and ever-greater enmity against Israel—with copious help from the US treasury. Things turned quite liberal on the USA’s part following the initial successes.
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.