Tacticle strike on Iran?

Question

I don't beleive the UN will do anything about stoping Iran from devel. nukes. Does anyone see a strong corelation between the apeasement of Iran and the apeasement of Hitler decades ago?...I sure do. Would tacticle strikes on Iran be better or worse for our country in the short and long term? I just don't see Iran launching a large scale war if we did so.

Answer 1

Just nuke em and get it over with

Answer 2

A worst-case scenario would unroll if the United States were to launch a major air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities in the next few months or 2007. A limited air strike against a "choke point," such as the Iranian uranium conversion facility at Isfahan, would likely disrupt Iran's nuclear program for a long time. The problem is what happens then.

Iran will respond in some way, all of which are devastating to regional and international security. They could lob scuds at Israel and US bases in the region.

They could block the Strait of Hormuz, cutting of the oil pipeline.

They could stop selling oil.

They could use their connections with Hizbullah to launch terrorist strikes against U.S. interests.

They could do all or any of the above in combination. The only feasible targeting of a US nuclear attack would be the hardened facility at Natanz, 75 ft under hard rock. The other nuclear facilities are soft targets and can be taken out by conventional weapons.

Answer 3

We CAN NOT allow Iran to have nukes. How soon we need to take action I don't know. I've heard experts say they are at least 5 years away, but just yesterday I heard news reports that say they may already have them. I do find it curious that Ahmadabad recently visited North Korea whom we know already has nukes. It makes me wonder if they could purchase them rather than develop them. I am concerned as another answerer about this willingness of many Americans to threaten a nuclear strike. I believe there are many good people in Iran who are just victims of this nut and I would favor surgical strikes against weapons facilities rather than the blanket turn the whole country into a parking lot approach. You are very correct about appeasement. That is all our middle east peace plans have been about....appeasing radical muslim extremists and pressuring Israel to go along with it.

Answer 4

It seems the US and a whole lot of people are dying to nuke a lot of countries because they feel threatened by them. Nice touch. Nothing learned from Hiroshima, Nagasaki, of course not..we would you eh...as long as it is far from your own homes. Then you can watch your TV screens and follow the news 24/7.

Man, Q and A is full of war mongers, all this bold language - strike this, nuke that, US rules, superior fire power. Man, it is plain pathetic. We don't deserve anything else than a WW III and we are heading in the right direction, if you ask me. It's a damn shame, that's what it is.

Answer 5

Look I agree, Iran with nukes is a bad thing but personally I also think Isreal with nukes is a bad thing, they are the ones I see most likely to use them. But you can't just tactically strike a country on "percieve threats". The idea is that if we can do it, why can't others. That is a door no one wishes to be open.

Answer 6

You would be seriously mistaken. Irans reaction would be like ours after 9/11 they would go nuts with rage. They would start by blowing away Saudi oil refineries. Then mining the gulf so tankers couldn't sail in the gulf. there army would move on Iraq our army would move to meet them that leaves our rear wide open to attack from insurgents. Then they might have materials for a dirty nuke bomb to blast our troops with, real smooth thinking arm chair general leave the war planning to the professionals.

Answer 7

Not time for Wing attack plan "R" just yet Col. Ripper......( Dr. Strangelove reference for those too young here)

The world is not fully on board & we don't a plan for, "Ok, now what?" just yet. They have a ways to go to get to weapons status. So it's "speak softly" mode right now. Plus we really are busy with other stuff. Castro my drop dead any day & we have crack pots in North Korea & Venezula to watch.

In the Pentagon and at Centcom, however. The planning guys are already brainstorming a strike with the "big stick".
.

Answer 8

bunker buster the *******! and kill all the martryrs as well! I say hit the martyrs brigade at their next pep rally with tactical nukes ro maybe carpet bobmb them! Those people want to kill us by any means possible i say we kill them first! Then if any other muslim extremist has a problem we take our super military power and shove it up their butts too! YEE HAWW lets get some extremists!!!

Answer 9

I hope US will understand that it must have attacked Iran instead of Iraq 3 years ago. What US did was bestowing Iraq to ayatollahs and fanatic shiite blind supporters of them.
It is never late. Instead of listening to b.a.stard China and Russia US should decide immediately and attack Iran as soon as possible.

Answer 10

actually, your spelling of tactical requires me to inquire, whether a *testicle* strike on ahmadinejad might not be a good idea? ;-) an interesting question you have posed, but i have only modest humor to answer with. the ME is an intractible morass of complexity. all i "know" for sure is , the U S is moving toward third world status, and the heartless, already morbidly bloated in body and ego, still want more for themselves, and the hell with us peasants. ;-)

Answer 11

yeah that would be a great idea. the UN is the most worthless alliance put together of all time. and about the underground bunker things, 2 words BUNKER BUSTERS. and maybe a few nukes would make it interesting too.