nuclear facilities, missiles, and airforce?
Note: I don't think we have any credibility in the region left to risk
2006-08-25 05:21:44 · 10 answers · asked by Brand X 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
According to official sources, Iran has an outdated air force, some antiaircraft missiles to defend against an air strike. their sea capabilities are better so a naval task force will have to destroy the Iranian navy.
It is estimated that at least 50 sites in Iran contain some of their nuclear program, so all these sites will have to be attacked, probably with bunker busting bombs or even with tactical nuclear weapons.
They have a large land force but with old weapon systems, they could use it to attack Iraq, for instance.
their main defense is missile capability which they will direct against civilian targets and against ships, it will be used as a terror weapon more than a means to attack the army.
another line of defense will be terror attacks against embassies, etc.
2006-08-25 05:43:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Any less than carpet-bombing the country and turning it into glass parking lot will drag the US and the entire Middle-Eastern region in a huge unlimited war that will last at least a decade.
You decide whether that's a pro or a con.
2006-08-25 05:24:23 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think the empire is bringing about its own death.... just how many enemies does USA really want to make? Right now the caucaus is reduced to Israel and USA and some lack lustre support by Blaire... but i think soon he will have to give up or go into history as bushes cronie.
2006-08-25 05:53:56 · answer #3 · answered by boogie man 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
we need to stop letting Iran buy time to build its bomb and take them out. Russia, China, are just waiting for us to be crippled by a nuke attack, then Chavez could suddenly call off his oil exports to our country, a perfect storm against us and we are sitting here twiddling our thumbs waiting for the U.N. to step in. what a pathetic joke.
2006-08-25 05:34:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i do no longer see an determination. If Iran keeps to develop uranium, iran would be a risk to israel and it would be as much as israel in spite of if to attack iran until now iran assaults them. its in elementary terms a query of who attack first. the two way conflict is inevitable,
2016-09-29 23:39:50 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pros: More money to the CEOs of America.
Cons: There is no downside when we own the goverment.
2006-08-25 05:41:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
drop the whole damn pay load on iran. That will solve just about everything
2006-08-25 05:58:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Pros - nuke and pave = we're done with those animals
Cons - we need to pull our guys out first
Pretty cut and dry, black and white.
2006-08-25 05:25:56 · answer #8 · answered by Fortune Favors the Brave 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
death everywhere
2006-08-25 05:27:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i C!
ALLAH!
2006-08-25 05:24:20 · answer #10 · answered by ALLAH! 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋