Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

So....What To do About Iran?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by The_Shootist, Jan 15, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The_Shootist

    The_Shootist Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,585
    Location:
    Richmond Tx, CSA
    Face it guys - its getting nasty. There's no way Iran can be allowed the remotest chance of acquiring nukes. I just see Israel (with tacit Us and some West Europe support) mounting some sort of bunker busting operation that at least slows them down.

    Given the current regime in Iran, there really isn't any good solution.
     
  2. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    I can't resist asking how any of this concern is really different than believing the intelligence on Iraq.
     
  3. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
    Soo many are going to lose.

    As Iran moves on development they will be engaged as I see no alternative from that region. Most of (90%-98%) of the people in Iran may be oposing the Iranian gov as elections and candidates are tightly regulated.
    The best actions against Iran would be against the facilities and the leadership that strangle the gov.
     
  4. orionengnr

    orionengnr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,434
    ummm...other than the fact

    that their own (newly-elected) leader is verifying the reports?

     
  5. Kim

    Kim Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,488
    If he is as Dumb as Saddam to lie so be it. Art's grandma is correct that lying has real life consequences some are quite deadly.
     
  6. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Oh, but it was it treated as equally credible with Saddam playing cat and mouse with weapons inspectors. Saddam supposedly is credited with the ruse of the century, partly to make Iran think twice about attacking Iraq.
     
  7. Preacherman

    Preacherman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,309
    Location:
    Louisiana, USA
    Victor Davis Hanson puts things into perspective in an article for National Review Online. I've reproduced the whole thing below, but I think the last sentence bears highlighting and repeating:

    From National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200601130837.asp):

     
  8. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    And what if Iran already *has* nuc capabilities? What if we're just being baited?
    A joint U.S./Isaraeli attack with a nuclear response from Iran and they can claim self-defense. A scary thought...
    Biker
     
  9. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    We simply don't have the manpower to do an all out invasion. Maybe if we pulled all of our troops from various countries they aren't needed but that is a stretch. Our best bet is to use covert operations. A good bit of Iran is young, and while maybe not totally pro west aren't anti west either, most want to westernize and modernize a bit. So my idea would be covert ops, take out best teams give them the best rifles and equipment we have plenty of ammo, a target list, and tell them to have some target practice. Nukes like guns themselves aren't a problem, it is the people with their fingers on the trigger that can prove to be a problem. Remove the guys from power that would love to see us and Israel gone and the problem is dramatically reduced.

    Option B is the option reserved for if option A doesn't have time to do anything. In short blow them into the stone age. Massive air strike against their air defense system and quick response units with cruise missiles and stealth. Follow that up with a second wave massive air strike against their command and control, nuclear program, weapons program, etc. I do NOT advocate the use of nukes. If anything very small tactical nukes for targets which conventional weapons wont be able to take out, such as some bunkers. But only as a last resort against the most important targets that absolutely need to be taken out that conventional weapons wont be able to do. I understand regime change can't be effective with air power alone. But it can be effective for destroying infrastructure and weapons.
     
  10. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Because all we had with Saddam was intel, and a where did they go. Something I supported and to a point still do. Here we have the guy point blank telling us he does, have unquestionable photos, and has Russia admitting. Sure, they say it is just for power, but doubt it highly.

    Truly scary indeed. But with people that fanaticle your chances of getting hit are good reguardless of if you strike first or not. And self defense, if we use large scale nukes maybe. But bombing civilians with nukes doesn't fly to well for the self defence card unless we do the same first. Even if we use tactical nukes, if we don't use them agianst civilians them using ones they may already have agianst civilians still doesn't hold water as self defense.
     
  11. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    Dunno Lupinus, I don't think that the size of the nuke will matter in the long run.
    If we use them first, we're condemned. Now, I don't much care about world opinion, but this could be significant. And really, nukes, either now or downstream, don't really discriminate.
    Biker
     
  12. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    It's an Air Force problem, not an Army and Marines problem. Land Wars in Asia aren't a bright idea—as we ought to have learned a long, long time ago.
     
  13. ajkurp

    ajkurp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    107
    Location:
    Idaho
    ...what to do?...

    Welcome them to the NBBC (Nuclear Big Boys Club). And explain the rules of nuclear war. You use one, we target a hundred.

    Then leave them alone.

    Mohammedites have a pathetic society, but they are not stupid.
     
  14. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    I don't think we can do anything now that involves land troops, considering we have them tied up with Bush's folly in Iraq.
     
  15. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Good point. But while the world is pretty sympathetic even Europe seems to be fed up with Iran. While using any nukes from our side wont go over well I think them retaliating agianst civilians with nukes will go over even worse then that. The type I am talking about are akin to enhanced bunker busters and the amount needed to give it the extra punch to get through a bunker would be (I'm no rocket scientist so I am guessing here) relativly small and therefore so would the radioactive material. Also keep in mind that since we are talking enhanced bunker busters the main explosion is going to be underground. Now not as deep as an old mine shaft like in the tests we used to do, but still underground. That would seem to contain a reasonable amount of radioactive materal under the ground, at least to the point of keeping it from drifting hundred of miles to heavily populated civilian areas.

    With most countries that would work. It has worked with India and Pakistan, heck even has worked with China. But I doubt that will work with radical Islamics. MAD only works if both sides are afriad of destruction. Islamic terrorists simply are not, and they aren't above sacraficing the lives of themselves or innocents to do that. Not even muslims, plenty of Iraqi citizens coperating with the US and otherwise have been killed by terrorists and they don't care. I doubt they would be afriad of retaliation if they could set off a nuke inside the US. They would see it as a great victory even if it ment a nuke going off over one of their cities.
     
  16. USMCRotrHed

    USMCRotrHed Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    176
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    EMP threat

    If Iran developes nukes and puts them on top of the rockets they have been testing, then fire these rockets from a ship, they can create an electromagnetic pulse that (in thoery) would destroy anything in the USA that relies on magnetic fields for power. Goodbye electricity, computers, cell phones, cars; hello horses, steam locomotives, firearms, kerosene lanterns and splitting mauls for firewood.

    Add this to the stuff Iran's president is spewing about preparing for the 12th Imam (end of world prophecy stuff) and it sounds like a dangerous situation.

    If you take what he says seriously and if somebody doesn't do something before it's too late, I hope you stocked up on 5.56 and 7.62x39.

    I'm starting to sound paranoid aren't I.....I'll stop now.
     
  17. Moondoggie

    Moondoggie Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    724
    Location:
    Small Town, Nebraska
    Iran wants nukes sooo bad, I think we should give them some.....used.

    Smaller nukes could not only knock out their facilities, but also make them unusable for a few thousand years. Since they are supposedly secret facilities I would think that they are at least somewhat isolated. Civilian casualties might be greatly reduced because of that.

    This Iranian President is a whack job along the lines of Kim Jon Il...both of them make my skin crawl every time I see them on the news. Does anybody here think either of these meglomaniacs give a rat's patoot about civilian casualties when they get the chance to make their big splash??? The time is coming when we're going to have to suck it up and take the gloves off with these nimrods. Hopefully TPTB make the decision before it's too late for us.

    Be the first to use nukes??? Boat's already sailed on that one. We were the first to use nukes. I fail to see what difference the method of destruction makes. 1 nuclear bomb kills 100K in seconds or 100 conventional bombs kill the same number in hours; it's still the same loss of life. One uses a chemical reaction, the other an atomic reaction...both result in a destructive explosion. Is a 5,000 lb conventional bomb somehow more immoral than a 500 lb bomb?

    If the US launched a pre-emptive nulclear strike on Iran I'm sure a lot of folks in the world would have a lot to say about it. I'm also sure a lot would say "They asked for it". I think that it would get very quiet the next time some country decided to head down the path to "Rouge Nation" status.

    Of course, all of this drama and angst could be avoided if the UN would extract it's head from it's posterier and take decisive action for the best interest of the whole world. I'm not holding my breath. Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind when thinking about the UN.

    You've got to stop and remember who/what we're dealing with here, and consider what's at stake. Iran gets nukes, they're going to use them.
     
  18. grimjaw

    grimjaw Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,358
    Location:
    Arkansas
    One could argue that Iran had no other choice in pursuing a nuclear option.

    We've knocked over two countries in a row and replaced the power structure. All this was done with relatively little fuss. It didn't matter that other countries raised a big stink over our actions in Iraq, because they haven't actually done anything to prevent or halt it. Now Iran is sitting right across the border from an extremely large and seasoned US military force. Wouldn't you feel threatened? What is basically the only thing you could do to keep them from steamrolling you? See nuclear option number one.

    I don't think it's rocket science, excuse the pun, and I don't think it's really got much to do with Iran threatening its neighbors. Pakistan and India, nuclear powers, both threaten each other. Why haven't we 'liberated' those countries? If Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, it seems like a self-preservation move to me. If you want the US to dance on its tiptoes, acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq didn't, or at least didn't have the capability to do any damage at range, and now they see Humvees and US flags at the Baghdad QuikMart. It's kind of like the 'have a gun' argument. If you're going to carry a gun, you better be prepared to use it if threatened. Saddam, if he had the option, didn't use it. Now he spends his days impotently yelling at judges.

    I think the US power structure thinks like this. There might never be a better time to strike Iran. The Russians are less powerful than in the Cold War, and they still have the Chechens occasionally making noise. They haven't called our bluff twice in a row. The Bush administration has seen what will and won't work with fear-mongering, and "look out they've got nukes/chemical weapons' is a tactic which should work again in the Security Council. Even if we didn't invade, if you attack strategically, you could potentially create the same situation that existed in Iraq before Saddam was toppled: an economically, militarily weakened country, embargoed from every side, that can be picked off in the future with little danger to the homeland.

    I personally think we invaded Iraq so that a Russian-backed Iran didn't do it first. Saddam would have died someday. Who was going to fill his shoes? We weakened him enough with war and sanctions. He was primed for being toppled by somebody else if not us.

    Will the Russians finally decide the US has made enough noise and secured entirely too many airfields close to its shores in the name of 'freedom'? Will China decide it first?

    "Terrorism" will continue to grow, and I think the US power structure knows this. Any large, organized power opposed to the US attracts attention and JDAM's. The only way to fight back for these people is with guerilla tactics and suicide bombings. It doesn't seem to be working for them, but it's the only damage they can inflict.

    Iran has organization, access to oil and customers that need it (Asia), access to weapons and technology (Russia/China/North Korea), and a power structure hostile to the US.

    I say all this without the benefit of facts. If Iran could definitely show they had no nuclear weapons or intent, I'm sure the US would quit saber-rattling and leave them in peace.

    Yeah, right.

    jmm
     
  19. GoRon

    GoRon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,495
    Location:
    west burbs of Chicago
    Or you can believe what they have told the world about destroying Israel. A top cleric just referenced using them in a first strike against Israel.
     
  20. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    I think you are both right, Grimjaw and GoRon. Iran is a pawn in an international game of risk, winner take all the oil. And it is run by a lunatic theocracy that is unstable and dangerous. There are no easy answers on this one, but I think that before we let our leaders drag us in there like half-cocked cowboys, we aught to take a good long look at where the money goes.
     
  21. progunner1957

    progunner1957 member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    A wolf living in Sheeple land
    "Boom boom, out go the lights"

    What to do?

    Mushroom cloud, perhaps??:D
     
  22. skooter2

    skooter2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2
    Iran wants a nuke?

    I say we send em one via airmail!!:mad:
     
  23. skooter2

    skooter2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2
    No flame intended


    it would seem to me however that your signature is in direct conflict to your statement here isnt it?:eek:
     
  24. antsi

    antsi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Pakistan and India aren't run by whack jobs who think the US is Satan.

    That "welcome to the big boys nuclear club" gets stood on its head when you are facing crazy people who are willing to die so long as they take out a couple of Americans.
     
  25. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    No, I dont think my sig conflicts this statement. We have to do something about Iran, I just dont think we have anything to do it with now. Even Bush acknowledges this, and his Secretary of State has said in the last 72 hrs that we have no plans of attacking Iran at this time.

    The War in Iraq has been an exercise in how to screw up a war by not planning ahead. Remember all the problems we had at first by not armouring HumVees, and providing body armour to soldiers? If we go into Iran as half assed as we went into Iraq, I think we will lose a lot of good men.

    We are sooner or later going to have to deal with Iran, but will probably have to abandon our nation building project in Iraq to do so.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page