Comments on: Quick “Strike” Plans vs. Iran

By: Brandon

Brandon — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:36:30 +0000

FVCK YOU BK BROILER

By: Marine101

Marine101 — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:50:42 +0000

Mohamed at January 30, 2007 09:32 PM <—- Do us a favor and stick a granade up your ass. You talk a bunch of BS, we are fighting for our freedom against those who dont want us to have those kinds of freedom, jealous dictators, terrorist all you who provok us. You guys strap bombs on yourselves and kill many innocent lives, we are just there cleaning out the bad guys to keep everything civil while you guys hide behind ski masks and in caves threatning us of attacks against the innocent, how about come out your hiding’s and be a man. IRAN supports terror and we must put a stop to that.

By: Calvin

Calvin — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:09:48 +0000

…Does the U.S. have this new version of those Formidable Stealth Bombers (f-2)that can carry the 30,000 lbs M.O.A.B. type Bomb so it could be used again any Nuclear site compound in Iran or North Korea!?
Do they have them?

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:51:20 +0000

A question of terminology: It used to be that the term “attack” was the designation for attacks using conventional weapons, while “strike” was reserved for attacks involving nuclear weapons.
Is this no longer the case, or am I remembering wrong?

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:58:47 +0000

World war waiting in the wings?
Sorry about the mistake. “This would have devastating consequences for Israel, who would in turn unleash their much more formidable nuclear arsenal on Iran.” I said “Iraq” by mistake.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:01:45 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
Iran is doing it’s best to provoke an armed response by the United States. The tacit approval of the Europeans (as long as they don’t have any risks or investments in the strike other then verbal posturing) has been given. This event could happen and maybe even should happen.
All of us who follow Defense Issues know fully well that the United States at the current time has the ability to do militarly what ever it wants to do. The only wild card here is Russia and so far they have been unimpressive in standing up to the United States.
My personal opinion is that Putin doesn’t have the ball to risk it all over Iran. Russia today has to stand alone with out it’s satellites and handcuffed “friends”. In fact is, it’s only and best friend is the United States.
China, forget it they own to many U.S. Treasury Bonds to risk any instability in financial markets with any rash action(s) on their part.
We are not the United States of the 90’s with a “Gold Plated Military” that only wants to show up for a parade, the U.S. is battle hardeded and the window for opportunity is open now. Oil forget it, we have Iraq.
A nuclear Iran is not an option. The leadership in Terhan knows this, I wonder what about Iraq they don’t get.
The United States is the worlds only superpower and tiding up issues like Iran is what Super Powers are suspose to do. Now is not the time for the cop on the worlds block to head for the DoNut Shop.
ALLONS,
Byron kinner

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:40:57 +0000

You forgot to mention the devestation wrought by this attack– in America, as oil quickly becomes 120$ barrel and gas prices exceed 5$ a gallon.

By: TrustButVerify

TrustButVerify — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:49:44 +0000

Dan,
I think your point regarding Pakistan is very insightful. How much faith should we have in M.‘s hold on power? What has his support for OEF cost him in political capital?
On another note, I should like some disambiguation of what you mean by AQ-type terrorism. By now it is widely accepted that Iran is a major sponsor of AQ in Iraq, so I assume you’re referring to September 11th-type attacks.
For a snap judgement I’d go along with this– the Iranian government does not appear to have supported pre-911 AQ operations.
HOWEVER, we must be mindful of other possibilities; i.e., what is the likelyhood of weapons making their way into terrorist hands via non-official channels– for instance, an Iranian colonel or technician with access to weapon componenets. Naturally, the same worries apply to every nuclear power but I suggest that they are greatly amplified in the case of Iran.

By: dan

dan — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:28:54 +0000

Interesting. Clearly, none of this actually applies to Iran in the real world as presently constituted. I doubt that running a centrifuge cascade for the production of LEU under IAEA supervision/monitoring would qualify. And given that Iran is unlikely to sponsor AQ-type terrorism, or pass WMD on to third parties, the scenario becomes even more unlikely. It’s possible that they would be motivated to do these things after an unprovoked attack, not prior to one. Perhaps having bad thoughts should be enough — we had to hit them because they would have hit us back if we, er, hit them.
Obviously, Arkin should realise that the scenario most likely to provoke the invocation of the plan is the assassination of Musharraf and an Islamist takeover of Pakistan.

By: Total

Total — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:04:23 +0000

“is to prevent “another 9/11,” this time one with WMD,“
They’re going to strike against American & United Airlines? Those being the delivery methods of choice on the first 9/11.