Fox News: War against Iran becoming likely

[StormScanWx]

I would like to mention something that my World History teacher mentioned my freshman year of High School. What has happened to every kingdom/empire so far that has attacked or taken over the Holy Land (Israel)? Notice they no longer exist? I just think it is interesting to point out, and with that kind of record on their side, it would be better to be with, than against them. Plus they are a Pro-Western country...so.

That's a good point and a very clever observation.

I think that Iran and all it's "Arab friends" should do like Egypt and Jordan did by establishing diplomatic relations and try to make peace.

[JTD]

A major newspaper daily in London is reporting that Vice President Cheney wants to use nuclear weapons against Iran in this coming war and that the inner circle in D.C. is coming to a consensus to bomb Iran:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ran116.xml

[mf_dolphin]

Well the story you posted says nothing about a nuclear strike. What's your source for the information?

The war in Iraq and what's being discussed here in a strike against Iran are two entirely different military senarios. There's little doubt that Iran could present any meaningful interference in a massive air campaign against their military and nuclear targets. It's interesting to see that France is also rattling sabers against Iran.

[JTD]

MF Dolphin,

It's the 12th or 13th paragraph down:

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.

[Hello32020]

Hmm, none of you seem to have mentioned these http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/mininuke2-5.gif

Stealth bombers could drop low-yield bunker busting nuclear weapons. That would completely destroy their facilities. (LOL I got a feeling my opinion is very different then the rest of yours )

EDIT: Ha, we both mentioned it at the same time

[JTD]

Hmm, none of you seem to have mentioned these http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/mininuke2-5.gif

Stealth bombers could drop low-yield bunker busting nuclear weapons. That would completely destroy their facilities. (LOL I got a feeling my opinion is very different then the rest of yours )

EDIT: Ha, we both mentioned it at the same time

Actually, I could support military action against Iran if exactly the same type of coalition that was formed against Iraq for the 1991 gulf war was re-assembled. If I recall correctly, I think that even Syria was in that coalition. Unilateral action here would have dire consequences.

[Hello32020]

Hmm, none of you seem to have mentioned these http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/mininuke2-5.gif

Stealth bombers could drop low-yield bunker busting nuclear weapons. That would completely destroy their facilities. (LOL I got a feeling my opinion is very different then the rest of yours )

EDIT: Ha, we both mentioned it at the same time

Actually, I could support military action against Iran if exactly the same type of coalition that was formed against Iraq for the 1991 gulf war was re-assembled. If I recall correctly, I think that even Syria was in that coalition. Unilateral action here would have dire consequences.

Our Air Force could do all the work on the facilities, though a collation would be good, I got a feeling this would be easier then Iraq if we only have to use our ground forces minimally. (And we don't get a collation.) Special forces could also do a lot of the work. The problem with a collation is that the collation could define the mission, where it should be the other way around. Though I would support a collation, we would have to prepare if nations would drop out if they didn't agree with a specific operation in an attack on Iran.

EDIT: I will now be sleeping

[mf_dolphin]

MF Dolphin,

It's the 12th or 13th paragraph down:

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.

Thanks I missed that. I seriously doubt however that nukes would be considered seriously. There would be no support internationally and the plain fact is that they aren't necessary to do the job. The Iranian air force would be destroyed in the first few hours and then the airstrikes would take placed relatively unopposed. That being said, Iran has taken great pains to build their nuclear facilites underground and to harden them against just this type of scenario.

[x-y-no]

A nuclear first strike (even with euphemistically "tactical" nukes) would justifiably make us a pariah state. I profoundly hope nobody anywhere near the reins of power is so criminally insane.


And I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the consequences of a conventional attack could be anything less than catastrophic, given our extremely vulnerable posture.

[mf_dolphin]

Well first I would have to agree with your assessment that we are in an "extremely vulnerable posture" which I don't. The land supply line is a convenience not a neccessity.

If we can look back at history and analyze Libiya as an example, a powerful and precise air strike in conjunction with economic pressure can and did alter the path of a rougue country.

I do agree that now is not the time to initiate the military option, it is the job of the military to refine those plans if they do become needed. Everyone needs to keep in mind that "leaks" of planning is just another way to increase the pressure on Iran.

[Dionne]

Suggesting the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a first strike option is very dangerous territory.

[mf_dolphin]

Nuclear weapons are always considered as a general first-strike weapon. Whether or not they were considered in this case is only speculation IMO. From a general military planning perspective you always consider all options.

[x-y-no]

Well first I would have to agree with your assessment that we are in an "extremely vulnerable posture" which I don't. The land supply line is a convenience not a neccessity.

What's the alternative? An airlift? We'd have a very tough time maintaining that to supply 160,000 troops plus another 100,000 or so contractors and civilian government employees for any length of time (especially while engaged in a hot war with Iran.)

Maybe a new land route through Lebanon or Turkey, but there are significant problems with each of those too.

Not to mention the trouble caused worldwide if Iran manages to shut down the Straits of Hormuz to oil shipments for any length of time.

If we can look back at history and analyze Libiya as an example, a powerful and precise air strike in conjunction with economic pressure can and did alter the path of a rougue country.

Hardly a meaningful comparison - Iran is a vastly more powerful opponent. Nor did we ever strike Libya with anything like the kind of wholesale attack being discussed.

I do agree that now is not the time to initiate the military option, it is the job of the military to refine those plans if they do become needed. Everyone needs to keep in mind that "leaks" of planning is just another way to increase the pressure on Iran.

You always plan for all kinds of likely and unlikely contingencies, of course. I wish I could be sanguine about this being leaks to apply pressure rather than serious intentions, though.

[mf_dolphin]

Well Iraq was supposedly the 4th or 5th most powerful army when we took them on initially. The absolute descimation of ground forces by allied air that we saw in Gulf War I would be repeated in Iran. My biggest point is that this would be an air war in which Iran couldn't defend the targets we chose to strike. The amount of damage that we could do to their hardened nuclear facilities is a big question in my mind, but we could at least delay what appears to be inevitable right now which is a nuclear armed Iran. I do disagree that Iran, once it obtains nuclear capability , would be bound by the same MAD deterrent that persisted during the Cold War era.

Personally I don't feel that any military action is even close to happening at this time. There's just a lot of sabre rattling on both sides IMO.

[Derek Ortt]

if we do go to war with Iran, we had better turn our troops loose and not hogtie them like we did in Iraq. This may mean Serbia type bombardment of civilians, which will result in thousands, if not tens of thousands of civilian deaths.

If we do not turn our troops loose, please do not place them in harms way

[Derek Ortt]

I am not certain that taking out Iran will solve the problem after thinking about it a little more

Just last week, Israel ahd to take out a facility in Syria that the NORTH KOREANS were helping them build to advance the Syrian nuke technology. NORTH KOREA has also helped Iran out a lot with nuke and missle technology. Maybe it is NORTH KOREA who we should be about to take out... as they can turn right to Syria and Venezuela if their Iranian clients are removed from the equation. Take out the source of the enemy

[mf_dolphin]

if we do go to war with Iran, we had better turn our troops loose and not hogtie them like we did in Iraq. This may mean Serbia type bombardment of civilians, which will result in thousands, if not tens of thousands of civilian deaths.

If we do not turn our troops loose, please do not place them in harms way

I haven't seen it suggested anywhere that a ground assault is being contemplated in regards to Iran. So I'd have to disagree with your "turn the troops loose" suggestion. The enemy here is not the Iranian people but with their militant leaderships desire to possess the nuclear bomb.

Here's an interesting article on the Israeli capabilities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... l/iran.htm

and another on the Iranian Air Force capability.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rforce.htm

[Derek Ortt]

However, we did not have a problem with the Serbian people in 1999... yet that was the only tactic that forced Milosevic to surrender, and Iran may be even harder to convince

[Ptarmigan]

I am not certain that taking out Iran will solve the problem after thinking about it a little more

Just last week, Israel ahd to take out a facility in Syria that the NORTH KOREANS were helping them build to advance the Syrian nuke technology. NORTH KOREA has also helped Iran out a lot with nuke and missle technology. Maybe it is NORTH KOREA who we should be about to take out... as they can turn right to Syria and Venezuela if their Iranian clients are removed from the equation. Take out the source of the enemy

North Korea is up to no good. The Korean peninsula is still at war technically. North Korea is only ready invading South Korea. If it did happen, it would be very bloody and short.

[x-y-no]

I am not certain that taking out Iran will solve the problem after thinking about it a little more

Just last week, Israel ahd to take out a facility in Syria that the NORTH KOREANS were helping them build to advance the Syrian nuke technology. NORTH KOREA has also helped Iran out a lot with nuke and missle technology. Maybe it is NORTH KOREA who we should be about to take out... as they can turn right to Syria and Venezuela if their Iranian clients are removed from the equation. Take out the source of the enemy

Now that's something I agree with you about. But NK involves a whole different kind of thorny problem - China. China was the reason the Korean war came to an impasse, and a far more powerful China today is the reason no progress is made in bringing down the last full-blown Stalinist state (and full-blown kleptocracy and unbridled peddler of WMD technology to boot.)