US Prepares Military Blitz Against Iran's Nuclear Sites

[F41]

Telegraph.co.uk

US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 12/02/2006)

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Do you believe America would be acting responsibly if they attacked Irans nuclear sites or does Iran have the right to develop nuclear weopons knowing they feel Israel does not have a right to exist?

Click to enlarge

 

[FinnMacCool]

I feel that we have the right to intervene if they are developing nuclear missles. However, at the same time, I am conflicted due to the absolute hypocrisy of the fact we only support nuclear weapons for those who are our business allies. But whatever. I think I would probalby support an attack on the Nuclear sites, if only as a last resort.

 

[Pacridge]

Do you believe America would be acting responsibly if they attacked Irans nuclear sites or does Iran have the right to develop nuclear weopons knowing they feel Israel does not have a right to exist?

Strategists at the Pentagon are always drawing up plans. I wouldn't be surprised to find they have plans developed for the invasion of Canada. Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Personally I think we should be looking at every option. I think we'd be better off to support an operation by another nation rather then do it ourselves. We're hated to such a degree already. Problem is, as usual, no one else is likely to step up to the plate. If Iran continues to develop their nuclear sites someone's going to have to take them out or Israel going to be at risk of becoming a glass parking lot.

 

[Kandahar]

I feel that we have the right to intervene if they are developing nuclear missles. However, at the same time, I am conflicted due to the absolute hypocrisy of the fact we only support nuclear weapons for those who are our business allies. But whatever. I think I would probalby support an attack on the Nuclear sites, if only as a last resort.

I don't think the United States really "supports" nuclear weapons in the hands of anyone other than the United States. We have just learned to live with the fact that certain countries have them. With that said, it would be wholly unacceptable for Iran to obtain them because the regime is fanatical and irrational, as well as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism.

 

[Goobieman]

I really have a hard time imagining anything worse than Iran getting nuclear weapons.

I mean -- that would be worse than even disco.

 

[Pacridge]

I really have a hard time imagining anything worse than Iran getting nuclear weapons.

I mean -- that would be worse than even disco.

That's just tells me you're not old enough to have been around during disco.

 

[tumbleweed]

I hope the Pentagon has better plans than we had in Iraq. In the event we do attack Iran, it will be an air campaign. We won't have to worry about infrastructure like Iraq. Irans nuclear facilities are spread out over a large area, with some of it in undergrond bunkers which will require repeditive strikes. I'm sure the plans for attacking Iran have been on the table for years.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Do you believe America would be acting responsibly if they attacked Irans nuclear sites or does Iran have the right to develop nuclear weopons knowing they feel Israel does not have a right to exist?

Click to enlarge

Yes, the US would be acting responsibly if it stopped Iran from building the bomb.

Yes, Iran has the sovereignity to decide to build a bomb if it wants to.

The two questions are not related.

 

[F41]

Yes, the US would be acting responsibly if it stopped Iran from building the bomb.

Yes, Iran has the sovereignity to decide to build a bomb if it wants to.

The two questions are not related.

Then I shall refphrase one of the the questions;

Should we allow Iran the right to produce a nuclear weapon knowing they feel Israel does not have a right to exist?

 

[Volker]

They did not say, they want to develop nuclear weapons.
If they really should do, then they would become one of ten nations, who have those weapons, it's not the end of the world.

 

[Kandahar]

They did not say, they want to develop nuclear weapons.
If they really should do, then they would become one of ten nations, who have those weapons, it's not the end of the world.

None of the other nations are ruled by irrational fanatics who would welcome their own martyrdom.

 

[Volker]

They could have decided to use chemical weapons during the First Gulf War, I mean, chemical weapons have been used against them. But I never heared, they did use WMD's.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Then I shall refphrase one of the the questions;

Should we allow Iran the right to produce a nuclear weapon knowing they feel Israel does not have a right to exist?

Are we in the business of denying rights, or actions? I don't think the first is possible, by definition. All we can do is limit the free exercise of whatever "right" is assumed to exist. (Okay, I'm being an ass...)

And my response to what I think your question means:

Hell no! Iran and no nation like Iran should be permitted to build nukes.

and

Who gives a crap about Isreal? If the only threat from Iran was to Isreal, it would certainly fall under the category of "not our problem". However, Iran's been our enemy since the Shah was booted, so we have our own, relevant reasons to not want Iran to have nukes.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

They could have decided to use chemical weapons during the First Gulf War, I mean, chemical weapons have been used against them. But I never heared, they did use WMD's.

It's actually scarey that you see no problem with Iran having nuclear weapons. Will your point of view change if your family happens to get liquified in a thermo Nuclear mushroom cloud. Coming from a suitcase nuke built with refined uranium from an Iranian dual purpose technology refinery. .... Hopefully in your backyard and not mine....

 

[Simon W. Moon]

... Iran's been our enemy since the Shah was booted...

Since Operation Ajax even.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Is there any evidence that Iran could succesfully use nukes offensively once they have them?
AFAICT, their use of nukes would lead to "national obliteration" posthaste.

Is there any evidence that the Iranian regime is undeterrable?
What is staying Iran's hand now if not deterrence?

Iran's nukes will primarily be a defensive means of changing the strategic balance in the ME.

While I've no desire to see them w/ nukes, I don't think it's the end of the world either.

I find Pakistan with nukes a much, much, much more frightening proposition.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Is there any evidence that Iran could succesfully use nukes offensively once they have them?
AFAICT, their use of nukes would lead to "national obliteration" posthaste.

Is there any evidence that the Iranian regime is undeterrable?
What is staying Iran's hand now if not deterrence?

Iran's nukes will primarily be a defensive means of changing the strategic balance in the ME.

While I've no desire to see them w/ nukes, I don't think it's the end of the world either.

I find Pakistan with nukes a much, much, much more frightening proposition.

Because we know how much they are against dying for a cause

 

[Goobieman]

Is there any evidence that Iran could succesfully use nukes offensively once they have them?
AFAICT, their use of nukes would lead to "national obliteration" posthaste.

Is there any evidence that the Iranian regime is undeterrable?
What is staying Iran's hand now if not deterrence?

Iran's nukes will primarily be a defensive means of changing the strategic balance in the ME.

While I've no desire to see them w/ nukes, I don't think it's the end of the world either.

I find Pakistan with nukes a much, much, much more frightening proposition.

IMHO, Iran will, directly or indirectly, use its nuke(s) on Israel.

 

[Deegan]

Is there any evidence that Iran could succesfully use nukes offensively once they have them?
AFAICT, their use of nukes would lead to "national obliteration" posthaste.

Is there any evidence that the Iranian regime is undeterrable?
What is staying Iran's hand now if not deterrence?

Iran's nukes will primarily be a defensive means of changing the strategic balance in the ME.

While I've no desire to see them w/ nukes, I don't think it's the end of the world either.

I find Pakistan with nukes a much, much, much more frightening proposition.

Who has Pakistan threatened? India has them, so it is indeed a security situation there, I would not like either to have them, but we can't be concerned about that now. The fact is we are not going to allow this in Iran, and for good reason, they have made threats before even having them, their intentions are clear. They intend on starting WW3, first by "wiping Israel off the map", then the U.S, Europe, and what ever other infidels they find an irritant.:shock:

 

[Dodgy_Geezer]

Goobieman "End the unjust Jewish occupation of Muslim land'
I say end the unjust Muslim occupation of much of the UK.Kick em out I say. They can go back to freeking Mecca if they don't like our cartoons.
They can **** off !

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Because we know how much they are against dying for a cause

IMHO, Iran will, directly or indirectly, use its nuke(s) on Israel.

Is there any evidence that the Iranian regime is undeterrable?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Who has Pakistan threatened?

They have been the world's largest supplier of illicit nuclear technology. North Korea and Iran have both benefitted from Dr. Khan's efforts. Cooperation with the US comes from a veneer of govt and military folks who tightly hold the reins on a military/intel w/ al-qaeda symathies.

They intend on starting WW3, first by "wiping Israel off the map", then the U.S, Europe, and what ever other infidels they find an irritant.

I doubt that the Iranian regime is so delusional as to think that a few nukes would give them ability to accomplish this. I also doubt that they think they can accomplish this in a single generation or even several generations nuclear weapons or no.

Much of the rhetoric that comes out Iran and is trumpetted here is for Iranian domestic consumption, the equivalent of the gay-marriage amendment etc. Lots of hot air to pump up the base.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Is there any evidence that the Iranian regime is undeterrable?

How much evidence is out there saying they are deterable? Has there past history shown them to be a people that fears retaliation or death? Not that I can see at least.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

How much evidence is out there saying they are deterable? Has there past history shown them to be a people that fears retaliation or death? Not that I can see at least.

What is staying Iran's hand now if not deterrence?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

What is staying Iran's hand now if not deterrence?

There lack of material and technology.... Both of which are soon to be coming if they are not stoped