Article

2007-03-27 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ryuge 2007-03-27 07:38|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I would like that...

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-03-27 07:47|| 2007-03-27 07:47|| Front Page Top

#2 Dead on target. I hope someone in the WH is listening.

Posted by Mac 2007-03-27 08:28|| 2007-03-27 08:28|| Front Page Top

#3 I recall reading about the electromagnetic weapon back then, and have since been frustrated that it's never been used. Understand, it would require some significant coordination: "OK. this will be so koowel. At 11:54:30 April 1st, we'll all turn off our equipment. Tehran will be soooo fried! So don't forget or your stuff will be fried too. Poland, I'm looking at you."

Posted by Captain Lewis 2007-03-27 08:57|| 2007-03-27 08:57|| Front Page Top

#4 Or we could just use nuclear weapons. Call me old fashioned if you must.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-03-27 09:35|| 2007-03-27 09:35|| Front Page Top

#5 If by "old fashioned" you mean stupid. (or glib?)

Posted by Captain Lewis 2007-03-27 09:56|| 2007-03-27 09:56|| Front Page Top

#6 Jimmy Carter launched and personally micromanaged into failure a military rescue mission in which eight Americans died in an aircraft collision at Desert One.

I distinctly remember a pre PC, pre internet snark refering to this mission as "The Carter Desert Classic"... of course I also remember the outrage when gas hit a buck a gallon...a BUCK a gallon... Ya'all must be crazy!

Posted by Capsu 78 2007-03-27 10:53|| 2007-03-27 10:53|| Front Page Top

#7 Excalibur, please, for what I hope is the last time, permit me to remind you that we can achieve all the necessary objectives in Iran through use of conventional weapons. Fuel-air bombs, like the MOAB, produce explosions with the force of an atomic bomb and none of its fallout.

Were the United States to employ first-use of nuclear weapons in Iran or elsewhere, it would be nothing less than an open invitation for terrorists to retaliate with atomic bombs on American soil. Once we had foolishly opened Pandora's nuclear box few, if any, Islamic regimes would feel many compunctions about facilitating such an atrocity against us.

Even though Iran's nuclear facilities are hardened, the massive electrical generation sites and other utilities that are required to support such efforts are not. A series of fuel-air bombs detonated near major ventilaion ports will result in a vacuum pump-down of those buried facilities that would suck the lungs out of their scientists' bodies. Blast doors or no, triggering massive avalanches to cover points of egress will leave any survivors to suffocate or starve.

America's superior military technology provides us with innumerable options in combating Iran's nuclear aspirations. Atomic bombs need not play any role whatsoever in crushing this tyrannical theocratic regime. The only real thing lacking is the political will to do it. All else required for this is strictly off-the-shelf.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-03-27 15:07|| 2007-03-27 15:07|| Front Page Top

#8 Ayatollah power symbolism rests in Qom, the major Shiite seminary center. Take out Qom, and Teheran will fall. People talk of the Basij Gestapo and the Revolutionary Guard, but Iran does have military professionals. Many of the latter would happily turn on the parasitic leadership. However, extensive use of Black Ops would be essential. For one, the scale of resentment against the Ayatollahs would escalate if Iranians knew the extent of confiscated wealth that is held by those parasites. Rafsanjani is a billionaire, and not from business acumen; he claimed government contracts without competitive bidding. His kind are as bad as the Sauds.

Posted by Sneaze 2007-03-27 15:49|| 2007-03-27 15:49|| Front Page Top

#9 Zenster:
I think that if they had the capability to deliver a nuke to us, they would use it. What we do is immaterial to that desire.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2007-03-27 18:38|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-03-27 18:38|| Front Page Top

#10 Fuel-air bombs, like the MOAB, produce explosions with the force of an atomic bomb and none of its fallout

The MOAB is neither a fuel-air bomb nor can it produce explosions with the force of an atomic bomb. There are ~~less than 10~~ few on hand.

It's an 8 inch rifle barrel filled with conventional explosives dropped from the back of a C-130. Mainly used to fill bandwidth.

Posted by Shipman">Shipman 2007-03-27 19:15|| 2007-03-27 19:15|| Front Page Top

#11 Thank you for the correction, Ship. Due to its explosive yield, I was under the impression that it was a thermobaric device. My point remains that fuel-air bombs still are capable of delivering massive strikes:

The effects produced by FAEs (a long high duration pressure and heat impulse) are often likened to the effects produced by low-yield nuclear weapons, but without the problems of radiationalthough this is inexact; for all current and foreseen subkiloton-yield nuclear weapon designs, prompt radiation effects predominate, producing some secondary heatingvery little of the nominal yield is actually delivered as blast. The significant injury dealt by either weapon on a targeted population is nonetheless great.

I think that if they had the capability to deliver a nuke to us, they would use it. What we do is immaterial to that desire.

Jackal, you are absolutely right in presuming that Iran's clergy has an unwavering dedication to destroying the West. That is precisely why I believe a preemptive strike against them is so imperative. Nothing else will avert a far more serious outcome.

Either we cripple Iran's nuclear aspirations now or confront a future need to vaporize their whole damn country in retaliation for the inevitable atomic atrocity that they will instigate. Iran's intention to do America great harm is not merely florid rhetoric for public consumption. It is their central desire and they see America as the single most greatest threat to their backward Neanderthal culture. We are utter fools not to take them seriously. If the use of nuclear weapons was our only option, you would see me advocating it right now. I believe otherwise and sincerely hope such a catastrophe can be avoided.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-03-27 20:44|| 2007-03-27 20:44|| Front Page Top

#12 Zenster, For the first time in a year of reading this site I disagree with you. IMHO the muzzies would use a nuke against any western target if they had it with no regard to first use. These guys are living a Fantasy Ideology. First Use requires logic and an understanding of the concept of cause and effect.

They're fresh outta that.

Posted by jds 2007-03-27 20:49|| 2007-03-27 20:49|| Front Page Top

#13 IMHO the muzzies would use a nuke against any western target if they had it with no regard to first use.

I believe you may be misinterpreting me. Where do I disagree with this? I think you are absolutely correct. All of the above only increases the need for preemption in Iran. I'm not saying that Iran would refrain from first use if we continued to do so as well. What I say is that our own first use of atomic bombs would strip away too much moral authority and leave us justifiably vulnerable to terrorist nuclear retaliation.

Instead, we have a plethora of options with which we can neutralize Iran's threat. Let's use those alternatives, retain our moral authority and keep our nuclear hole card available as the ultimate threat. Worst of all is how MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) has no meaning to Islamic fundamentalists. To quote Ayatollah Khomeini:

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
Speech in Qom 1980

The psychological instability of the fanatics is such that we need to retain nuclear obliteration as a final measure to use against them. No need to invite some sort of tit-for-tat nuclear exchange. It only does us more harm than good. Better to decapitate Iran without delay.

If nuclear weapons were the only possible way of addressing Iran's current hostility, I'd already be advocating their use. I want this issue put on ice at the soonest possible moment. Iran means to do America great harm and we are fools not to take them seriously.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-03-27 21:06|| 2007-03-27 21:06|| Front Page Top

#14 Excalibur, please, for what I hope is the last time, permit me to remind you that we can achieve all the necessary objectives in Iran through use of conventional weapons.

Teaching knifework to a chainsaw adherent...

Posted by Pappy 2007-03-27 22:07|| 2007-03-27 22:07|| Front Page Top

#15 Krueger vs. Jason, next Geraldo!

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-03-27 23:42|| 2007-03-27 23:42|| Front Page Top

18:04 George Humping9486
19:20 Testerzvl
15:13 tu3031
06:38 antonyandruleit
23:57 Thraigum Bourbon8732
23:54 Zenster
23:51 JosephMendiola
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:46 Zenster
23:42 Zenster
23:36 JosephMendiola
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:17 USN, ret.
23:06 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:56 Sneaze
22:43 Jackal
22:19 John Frum
22:17 Jules
22:17 John Frum