Santorum promises airstrikes on Iran....
Well, at least the Republican field is offering up a stark difference from Obama.
Well, at least the Republican field is offering up a stark difference from Obama.
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (part II)
- Thread starter dante
- Start date
Doubtful. As we saw in 2003, the UN isn't likely to fall for the "OMFG, they might be dangerous" line. When there's mass civilian casualties, the UN is likely to step in (as in Libya), but just to get rid of a secretive nuclear program? I'm 99% certain that Russia or China would veto it.
Sweet, another self entitled, war-mongering American politician. "We can have all the nukes we want, but these guys cannot." Israel can though, they are our buddies. Even though they are just as much gigantic **** disturbers are the Iranians are.
Please make these idiots go away. These US could be in for a gong show the next 4 years if one of these moronic Republican candidates wins.
Why can't this party field someone who knows WTF they are doing, besides pandering to the lowest common redneck jesus loving denominator?
Please make these idiots go away. These US could be in for a gong show the next 4 years if one of these moronic Republican candidates wins.
Why can't this party field someone who knows WTF they are doing, besides pandering to the lowest common redneck jesus loving denominator?
Last edited:
Take every negative stereotype about an American (fat, stupid, lazy, overly and annoyingly religious, bigoted, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.) and wad it up into a bloated ball of hate and idiocy.
Those are the people who pick the GOP candidates.
Sadly, you're right. The true spirit of the Republican party was lost long ago when the god-tards took over.
I'm going to have to agree on this considering he said "... unless the country opens it's plants to UN inspectors."
There should be no restrictions on who can use nuclear power. But that being said, if something catastrophic happens (which is a high likelyhood considering how new Iran is to this) it will be a world issue, not an Iran issue so it very much is our business.
They want nuclear power that's fine, but it will meet global standards in terms of production and safety. For Iran to get so gun-ho when we suggest this proposal says alot about their true intentions with the material program they now run.
Maybe bombing isn't the answer (nuclear radiation leaks much, idiots???), but cut off their supply routes or something. If they don't like it then what's to stop them from just using solar power (this country is an f'ing desert after all)?
If they want it for power purposes, why the hell don't they just let the UN inspect it for god's sakes? Why the f**k do they have to stir the pot every chance they get? Idk, I just really don't think a country as radical as this should have that resource but hey if they do at least let world regulators inspect it, because again... should something go wrong you really think it's going to magically contain itself within Iran's borders?
There should be no restrictions on who can use nuclear power. But that being said, if something catastrophic happens (which is a high likelyhood considering how new Iran is to this) it will be a world issue, not an Iran issue so it very much is our business.
They want nuclear power that's fine, but it will meet global standards in terms of production and safety. For Iran to get so gun-ho when we suggest this proposal says alot about their true intentions with the material program they now run.
Maybe bombing isn't the answer (nuclear radiation leaks much, idiots???), but cut off their supply routes or something. If they don't like it then what's to stop them from just using solar power (this country is an f'ing desert after all)?
If they want it for power purposes, why the hell don't they just let the UN inspect it for god's sakes? Why the f**k do they have to stir the pot every chance they get? Idk, I just really don't think a country as radical as this should have that resource but hey if they do at least let world regulators inspect it, because again... should something go wrong you really think it's going to magically contain itself within Iran's borders?
You can say that about almost every country with nukes or nuke power...why can the US do wind and solar? As one who spent 5 years in the Cali desert, I will tell you there is plenty to go around...
We have set a nice precedence that we will attack most any country we do not like, unless they have nukes. Why wouldn't Iran want a nuke.
Gee, unless they open their top-secret plants to weapons inspectors, we get to go to war? Where have I heard that one before?
You realize that that means that we WILL bomb Iran, right? We demand to see "secret" weapons facilities, Iran denies that they exist, we get to bomb the sh!t out of them.
YAY!!!!
As insane as they are, Iran is a sovereign nation. It isn't up to the USA or anyone else to tell them what they can, and cannot have. Period.I'm going to have to agree on this considering he said "... unless the country opens it's plants to UN inspectors."
There should be no restrictions on who can use nuclear power. But that being said, if something catastrophic happens (which is a high likelyhood considering how new Iran is to this) it will be a world issue, not an Iran issue so it very much is our business.
They want nuclear power that's fine, but it will meet global standards in terms of production and safety. For Iran to get so gun-ho when we suggest this proposal says alot about their true intentions with the material program they now run.
Maybe bombing isn't the answer (nuclear radiation leaks much, idiots???), but cut off their supply routes or something. If they don't like it then what's to stop them from just using solar power (this country is an f'ing desert after all)?
If they want it for power purposes, why the hell don't they just let the UN inspect it for god's sakes? Why the f**k do they have to stir the pot every chance they get? Idk, I just really don't think a country as radical as this should have that resource but hey if they do at least let world regulators inspect it, because again... should something go wrong you really think it's going to magically contain itself within Iran's borders?
By the way, bombing Iran's weapons facilities really won't have much of a positive effect. They've spread them out enough that we'd never get *all* of them, and they've also dug them far enough underground that we'd have to be exact with a bunker-buster in order to get it.
On the flip side, I could see the following happening:
1) Iran threatens to shoot missiles at any ship passing through the Straight of Hormuz. This will effectively stop shipments through the Straight, cutting off 20% of the world's oil supply. No shipping company is going to want to risk their ships/personnel/oil by seeing if Iran is serious. Now does the US start bombing the coastal batteries as well even if Iran hasn't launched any missiles?
2) Iran actually starts launching missiles at any ship going through the Straight of Hormuz. That will definitely ratchet up the attacks by the US, but what if those missile launchers are placed in civilian areas? A slow, lumbering tanker is vulnerable to just about any mobile short-range surface-to-surface missile, and if pictures/videos of dead Iranian children show up on the news Iran wins the propaganda war.
3) Iran invades Iraq or Kuwait. The US army is gone. The Iraqi army isn't ready to take on a full-scale war with a country that has almost a million men in it's army. The border is long and porous, and it'd be impossible to defend all of it.
4) After Iran invades Iraq, they're met with a friendly response from the Iraqi Shia population who rise up against the Sunnis/Americans...
So oil has gone up to ~$300/barrel (or more), the US gets dragged back into a multi year, multi-hundred-billion dollar war, our economy is back in the sh!tter (see: $300/barrel oil), and we'd be facing our first real 'defeat' militarily since the Vietnam war, all because we opted to go first-strike militarily.
Best case scenario is Santorum hasn't thought it through. At worst he's dumb enough to get us into WWIII.
On the flip side, I could see the following happening:
1) Iran threatens to shoot missiles at any ship passing through the Straight of Hormuz. This will effectively stop shipments through the Straight, cutting off 20% of the world's oil supply. No shipping company is going to want to risk their ships/personnel/oil by seeing if Iran is serious. Now does the US start bombing the coastal batteries as well even if Iran hasn't launched any missiles?
2) Iran actually starts launching missiles at any ship going through the Straight of Hormuz. That will definitely ratchet up the attacks by the US, but what if those missile launchers are placed in civilian areas? A slow, lumbering tanker is vulnerable to just about any mobile short-range surface-to-surface missile, and if pictures/videos of dead Iranian children show up on the news Iran wins the propaganda war.
3) Iran invades Iraq or Kuwait. The US army is gone. The Iraqi army isn't ready to take on a full-scale war with a country that has almost a million men in it's army. The border is long and porous, and it'd be impossible to defend all of it.
4) After Iran invades Iraq, they're met with a friendly response from the Iraqi Shia population who rise up against the Sunnis/Americans...
So oil has gone up to ~$300/barrel (or more), the US gets dragged back into a multi year, multi-hundred-billion dollar war, our economy is back in the sh!tter (see: $300/barrel oil), and we'd be facing our first real 'defeat' militarily since the Vietnam war, all because we opted to go first-strike militarily.
Best case scenario is Santorum hasn't thought it through. At worst he's dumb enough to get us into WWIII.
I'd bet on the latter. I also bet on America (with UN backing and possibly Arabian/Kuwaiti assistance) launching "pre-emptive" strikes on any and all suspected Iranian coastal batteries within hours of any threat to fire missiles at ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
Not that I can blame them in this case, however, but it will be a lose lose situation that will possibly pull the entire middle eastern theatre into a protracted battle. Iran WILL lose in this case however, as the sanctions and blockade that will be imposed on them by the entire UN, Arabs, Kuwaities and probably the Chinese will be suffocating.
Remember, China is now the world's largest consumer of raw energy. They need oil. They used 4% more than the USA last year.
Not that I can blame them in this case, however, but it will be a lose lose situation that will possibly pull the entire middle eastern theatre into a protracted battle. Iran WILL lose in this case however, as the sanctions and blockade that will be imposed on them by the entire UN, Arabs, Kuwaities and probably the Chinese will be suffocating.
Remember, China is now the world's largest consumer of raw energy. They need oil. They used 4% more than the USA last year.
If the US launches preemptive military strikes based on a 'threat', it will end very, very badly for the US. I'm 99% certain that the UN will not back a strike based on just a verbal threat.
I feel better with your analysis of mutually assured destruction. No button pushing hopefully.
i find people who wear a sweater vest with their name on it to be 1)mentally challenged or 2)oddly self-serving.
"Santorum Surge"
Dude, nsfw."Santorum Surge"
And as insane as they are the Iranian powers that be fully understand the repercussions of using a nuke. One nuke to Israel, and Iran no longer exists. I have more than a couple friends that are fresh out the IDF and think the idea of Iran having nukes being a true threat is laughable.
Remember this as well. Of the 2 nukes used in anger in the history of the world, it was the US that used them both
Some "light reading" for you.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf
She estimates that with mines it would take between 28 and 40 days to clear, and with anti-ship batteries on land it would take between 9 and 72 days based on how often they were used. On the latter, I'd be extremely concerned about batteries kept in residential areas, requiring additional care to avoid or minimize Iranian casualties.
Define your context of used in anger for me. You realize the decision to bomb was based largely on the fact that the intelligence we had suggested the Japanese were not going to surrender willingly, even with an attack of their island. I tend to believe that the decision was based to force a surrender to save millions of lives from a prolonged land and sea battle. I also believe that the decision makers did not fully comprehend what those weapons were going to do to future warfighting. But anger? I don't think decisions are made like that in anger.
Not safe for anything. Yuck.
Anger referring to against people. I would agree with everything you said.
thank homogod that santorum will never, ever get elected. I would however no mourn even for a second if someone put a round through his brain pan.
Agreed. As do all interviewees who were involved in the process. The DOD also saw it as a way to battle test the weapons themselves. Invading the home islands would have cost just as many lives, if not more, on both sides. Not that it is to be condoned, but that was part of the thought process.
Iran test-fired shore-to-ship missiles earlier at the end of their military exercises...
Just imagine how hard it would be to take this out if it were hidden in or around an apartment complex:
Just imagine how hard it would be to take this out if it were hidden in or around an apartment complex:
Not that bad really, we've all seen how much the US cares about collateral damage. A few loitering FireScouts Sentinels and Reapers armed with Hellfires and other multirole munitions and it's goodnight to the launchers. If they loiter on station long enough (as they probably already are) they'll see them getting into position/activity around them etc.Iran test-fired shore-to-ship missiles earlier at the end of their military exercises...
Just imagine how hard it would be to take this out if it were hidden in or around an apartment complex:
It is virtually impossible to say that invading the islands would have cost as many lives. Deaths from those two bomb blasts totaled almost 200,000 people by 1950.
Would causalities have been high? yes, but to say that invading would killed as many if not more is a practical impossibility. Never before had such a horrific act of military might been exacted instantly on such a large civilian population.
So Israel was just utterly incompetent in their war against Hezbollah then? Because over the course of their 3 (?) week war they couldn't destroy the rockets of a terrorist group, let alone ones that would be utilized by a sovereign state... And no, the US has not shown the casual indifference to human life that would allow them to below up an apartment block just to get to the rocket launcher next to it...
Call me crazy, but arent "we" complaining at Iran using/testing weapons we have stockpiles of? I may be totally off base here, but if iran started to use that rocket launcher in that picture for something we dont approve of, wouldnt we just send 200 of them to blow it up?
I'd fully expect Iran to do something like this:
Am I the only one that sees a cowboy hat getting fired out the barrel with the missile? Just looking at the pic makes me want to yell "YEEHAW!"
It's actually not that hard at all.Iran test-fired shore-to-ship missiles earlier at the end of their military exercises...
Just imagine how hard it would be to take this out if it were hidden in or around an apartment complex:
As long as it's larger than a basketball and closer than 2 miles, it's targeted.
<edit>
the launcher would be tracked after the first shot, the shot would have a tough time getting close. A well placed tomahawk could take out both in one trip with multi payloads.
Last edited:
I have a great artists rendering of my ship going through the straight I will post up when I get home. It's fitting.
According to the NRA you should have one of these concealed on your person. You know, for safety.
Ummm, I'm pretty sure that they don't put those on ordinary oil tankers these days...It's actually not that hard at all.
As long as it's larger than a basketball and closer than 2 miles, it's targeted.
<edit>
the launcher would be tracked after the first shot, the shot would have a tough time getting close. A well placed tomahawk could take out both in one trip with multi payloads.
As for the launcher, the trick is taking the launcher out without killing the 300 people living in the apartment block above it. Tomahawk's are good, they're not *that* good. Besides, they only have to drag the launcher out when an oil tanker makes a run for it. Till then they can keep it well hidden, particularly in highly-populated areas. Look how long it took Israel (who has fewer qualms about shelling populated areas than we do) to try to get rid of all of Hezbollah's rockets in '06. When cease-fire talks finally started (3 weeks later?) Hezbollah was still firing rockets into Israel. If Hezbollah can do that, imagine what a sovereign nation could do.
All I'm saying is that if we start shooting, expect oil to triple and our economy to go down the crapper. But hey, I bet $10/gallon gas should do great for the bike industry.
That's just an artist's rendition of my asshole the day after I go a little too crazy with the Sriracha at dinner...
An extrovert eh?