Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iran attacks a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, killing 2,403 military personnel
Kinda parallels the bombing of the world trade center where the retaliation wasnt nuclear.
Nuclear weapons have a deterrent effect against nations that can't move and have to worry about protecting citizens and infrastructure to keep existing - not so much against organizations. Not that there weren't calls - loud - to bomb someone, anyone.
That's of course also where the scenario fails - Iran's leadership may sometimes appear slightly unhinged to us, but they're not stupid. If any nation attacks a US strategic asset like a carrier, it is perfectly understood by anyone that a US strategic response will follow. Iran can't hide in a cave in Afghanistan.
And, of course, the choice given in the poll is a classical example of a false dilemma. Since when would that be the only options?
Given Israeli and U.S. threats to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities over the years, it is safe to assume Iran has installed surface-to-air defense systems to protect their nuclear infrastructure. Therefore, an air campaign would be required to destroy Iran’s air defenses before Israeli bombers could attack Iran‘s nuclear program.
An attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would be the beginning of another long, costly war in the Middle East. At best, an attack would only delay Iran’s program a few years until a new covert facility could be made operational.
Almost as if some sort of multinational deal with inspections and removal of certain facilities & materials and whatnot would be worth a shot, eh?
MOPs are not standoff weapons; they must be dropped above the target. This means Israel would need to penetrate Iranian airspace in order to deliver the bombs. The bombers capable of delivering the MOPs (likely U.S.-made B-52s) will be vulnerable targets for Iranian air defenses. Given Israeli and U.S. threats to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities over the years, it is safe to assume Iran has installed surface-to-air defense systems to protect their nuclear infrastructure. Therefore, an air campaign would be required to destroy Iran’s air defenses before Israeli bombers could attack Iran‘s nuclear program.
An attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would be the beginning of another long, costly war in the Middle East. At best, an attack would only delay Iran’s program a few years until a new covert facility could be made operational.
It is not ww2 all over again. situation was different back then.
I say how about stay away from middle east? I admire Israel and think israel has right to defend herself. But come on now, This country (America) has so many problems, We shouldn't have such screw up priorities, (tranny in bathroom, abortion) we should concentrate on economy, insane trade deals, bring troops home, and have Israel and rest of the world defend themselves already.
I can't speak on behalf of other countries and their nuclear arsenal...but America doesn't need "bombers" to drop nuclear warheads - that's just one delivery mechanism. Granted, you referred MOPs specifically - which no doubt Iran has a surface to air defense system in place and I have no doubt we know of it's parameters and it's weaknesses. For every measure, there's a countermeasure. I wouldn't condone a nuclear act of aggression on Iran without undeniable evidence of imminent nuclear threat to US assets (regardless of location).
In all honesty - if Iran was going to display that kind of aggression toward anyone - it would be toward Israel before the US imo.
What kind of nukes are we talking about though? The so called tactical nukes that confine themselves to the battleground or a predefined area, or the strategic nukes capable of wiping entire cities off the map?
I am thinking B-61 which is America’s primary tactical nuclear weapon. The tactical versions of the B-61 (Mods 3, 4, 10 and 11) can have yields of up to 170 kilotons, over 10 times the amount of explosive power in Little Boy, the atomic weapon the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima.
I read it somewhere that a tactical nuclear weapon with a much, much lower yield would likely be used in such an attack.
Nuclear weapons have a deterrent effect against nations that can't move and have to worry about protecting citizens and infrastructure to keep existing - not so much against organizations. Not that there weren't calls - loud - to bomb someone, anyone.
That's of course also where the scenario fails - Iran's leadership may sometimes appear slightly unhinged to us, but they're not stupid. If any nation attacks a US strategic asset like a carrier, it is perfectly understood by anyone that a US strategic response will follow. Iran can't hide in a cave in Afghanistan.
And, of course, the choice given in the poll is a classical example of a false dilemma. Since when would that be the only options?
I can't speak on behalf of other countries and their nuclear arsenal...but America doesn't need "bombers" to drop nuclear warheads - that's just one delivery mechanism. Granted, you referred MOPs specifically - which no doubt Iran has a surface to air defense system in place and I have no doubt we know of it's parameters and it's weaknesses. For every measure, there's a countermeasure. I wouldn't condone a nuclear act of aggression on Iran without undeniable evidence of imminent nuclear threat to US assets (regardless of location).
In all honesty - if Iran was going to display that kind of aggression toward anyone - it would be toward Israel before the US imo.
I agree with you 100%. Attacking U.S. is national suicide for them.
I would also like to point out that America has an unhealthy addiction to WWII and it is one reason why the US seems to be obsessed with getting an unconditional surrender. The US wanted an unconditional surrender from North Korea and North Vietnam and got an unconditional surrender from Iraq and Afghanistan (I know some posters will say those aren't unconditional surrenders but completely taking over the government and setting the peace terms unilaterally is an unconditional surrender in my book). It's why the whole Iran nuclear deal is failing since nothing short of Iran surrendering and letting the US dictate how Iran should be govern will please certain US policy officials.
Edit: I found this document from the DoD which states unconditional surrender of Iraq is the only peace the US will accept.
For every measure, there's a countermeasure. I wouldn't condone a nuclear act of aggression on Iran without undeniable evidence of imminent nuclear threat to US assets (regardless of location).
Cool heads needed, agreed. It's not as if Iranian armor divisions are massing for the final push on Washington - the scenario would leave plenty of time for more considered responses.
It's a given that Iran would have very few friends in the area - or, likely, in the world. Turning the Strait of Hormuz into a war zone is going to hurt a lot of countries right in the pocketbook. Russia or China would not at all like the idea that strategic assets of nuclear superpowers (they count themselves in that group) are valid targets for sucker punches. They may not much like the US, but they very much like the idea that smaller nations stay in line.
In the meantime, the US can carefully, deliberately take out a lot of defense assets that Iran would have a hard time replacing.
I agree with you 100%. Attacking U.S. is national suicide for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Cool heads needed, agreed. It's not as if Iranian armor divisions are massing for the final push on Washington - the scenario would leave plenty of time for more considered responses.
It's a given that Iran would have very few friends in the area - or, likely, in the world. Turning the Strait of Hormuz into a war zone is going to hurt a lot of countries right in the pocketbook. Russia or China would not at all like the idea that strategic assets of nuclear superpowers (they count themselves in that group) are valid targets for sucker punches. They may not much like the US, but they very much like the idea that smaller nations stay in line.
In the meantime, the US can carefully, deliberately take out a lot of defense assets that Iran would have a hard time replacing.
I think I read this from another political forum that
The targeting assessment completed by military analysts have concluded that the Natanz Nuclear facility cannot be destroyed by conventional weapons as it is 75 feet under hard rock. A tactical nuclear device, if accurate, would be the only option, even considering the contamination to surrounding areas.
The point of no return is when they have built 3,000 more centrifuges to enrich the unranium up to 90% for a nuclear device to be operational. Today, they only stand at 3.5%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
