Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/31/2004 9:08:59 AM EST
Iran declares they have developed a nuclear weapon, Israel tells us they will attack within the week unless the US does. US is stretched too far for our present responsibilities, much less a new one. Invading a country three times the size of Iraq witha real million man army is simply not an option. You are a National Security analyst, and the NSAdvisor needs options to give the President. What can you offer him?

Note: this is not high school so keep it a bit high-level, ok? And the lenguage of the scenario is VERY important, so read it carefully.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:11:37 AM EST
No one can force us to attack anyone.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:11:43 AM EST
Easy, use a stealth bomber or two to drop smallish nukes on Iran's sites where they are developing nuclear bombs, and then express tons of concern and sympathy for the "accident" they had with their nuclear program.

Indignantly deny any suggestion that we had anything to do with their accident. Offer to send aid to help the poor primitive bastards who got bruned playing with fire.

(and make sure that North Korea understand how easy it is for such accidents to happen).
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:14:16 AM EST
Funny, my US Foreign Policy prof. was just talking about this same scenario, and he used much the same language. I'll say the same thing I told him, the US can start airstrikes tonight on Iran's nuke plants if we want to. Stopping the Iranians from developing nukes does not equate a full scale invasion. Just b/c we have alot of ground troops in Iraq and Afgh. does not mean we don't have a ton of available air capability.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:15:58 AM EST
DK - problem is, the material in a nuke has a specific atomic signatre that could be traced back to the U.S.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:18:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Easy, use a stealth bomber or two to drop smallish nukes on Iran's sites where they are developing nuclear bombs, and then express tons of concern and sympathy for the "accident" they had with their nuclear program.

Indignantly deny any suggestion that we had anything to do with their accident. Offer to send aid to help the poor primitive bastards who got bruned playing with fire.

(and make sure that North Korea understand how easy it is for such accidents to happen).


DK, as a college prof, i'm sure you know that any mention of us using nuclear weapons offensively we'll result in a F grade and probable suspension
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:18:40 AM EST
Easy, make Iran one big crater. The we could just go over there and laddle the oil out of the hole.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:18:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By lokt:
DK - problem is, the material in a nuke has a specific atomic signatre that could be traced back to the U.S.




Seriously? And so other people like the IAEA would be able to trace that?

Dammit!! It was such a great idea otherwise!! Maybe we could cut a deal with North Korea, and send them lots of McDonalds and left-oevr Halloween candy in exchange for one of their nukes - I'm sure nobody has their "fingerprint" on file, since they're so secret
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:20:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
DK, as a college prof, i'm sure you know that any mention of us using nuclear weapons offensively we'll result in a F grade and probable suspension




Not in my class - but then again, I teach MBA students, and they'd probably be willing to nuke a business competitor !
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:20:21 AM EST
So the choice is for the U.S. to attack Iran, or wait for a nuclear war between Iran and Israel? Seems like attacking Iran would be the logical choice. However, being the most powerful county in the world, we couldn't let Israel tell us to attack another country. Nor would we be in good shape if the Middle East got what seemed to be confirmation that America is a puppet of Israel. Use the week to pull our troops out of the Middle East and let them destroy each other.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:21:27 AM EST
Actually I think the most logical answer would be to give Iran an ultimatum, give up the nukes or be destroyed. And if they nuke Isreal proced with destruction. We have over 3000 nukes, I am sure we wouldnt miss the 500 or so we lob at Iran.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:21:50 AM EST
Whatever... Israel threatening to attack them unless we do? Where is the threat there? Drop a few MOAB's on their nuclear facilities, let the IDF kick some ass.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:21:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
DK, as a college prof, i'm sure you know that any mention of us using nuclear weapons offensively we'll result in a F grade and probable suspension




Not in my class -


do you teach any internet courses?
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:22:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By Daytona955i:
Whatever... Israel threatening to attack them unless we do? Where is the threat there?


iranian retaliation, another Arab-Israeli war with alot of American troops caught right in the middle.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:23:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
DK, as a college prof, i'm sure you know that any mention of us using nuclear weapons offensively we'll result in a F grade and probable suspension




Not in my class -


do you teach any internet courses?




I WISH - then I wouldn't have to wait until I get tenure to start teachinig in a bathrobe and slippers
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:24:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
DK, as a college prof, i'm sure you know that any mention of us using nuclear weapons offensively we'll result in a F grade and probable suspension




Not in my class -


do you teach any internet courses?




I WISH - then I wouldn't have to wait until I get tenure to start teachinig in a bathrobe and slippers

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:25:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By lokt:
DK - problem is, the material in a nuke has a specific atomic signatre that could be traced back to the U.S.



We just steal the fissile material from North Korea and fabricate an anouncement that NK is going to take over Iran to solve their energy deficit.


Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:28:00 AM EST
Sortie all the Ohios and surface them all at the same time for a few hours. Make sure the media captures the event. Send pics to your favorite Iranian embassy.

CW
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:28:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 9:29:31 AM EST by chapperjoe]
well, i have a page or two on each of my options, but here's what i got in order of kerry to bush (ahahahahaha):

1. Ask them what they want and give it to them
2. Ask them what they want and negotiate with them
3. Do Nothing
4. Ask them what they want and withhold it
5. Allow punitive actions via proxy
6. Take punitive actions alone
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:29:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By lokt:
DK - problem is, the material in a nuke has a specific atomic signatre that could be traced back to the U.S.



Like we don't have several of the "missing" nukes from the old Soviet Union?
Credible deniability.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:31:38 AM EST
The whole premise is bogus as hell.
1) Iran isn't going to <b>announce</b> the completion of the nukes they are working so hard to complete - they are simply going to launch them on Israel at the earliest possible moment - they have already stated they will do so. They have already stated they are willing to accept ANY retaliatory losses to do so.
2) Israel isn't going to wait on us, and certainly isn't going to wait until the Iranian program bears its poison fruit. They will strike early, just as they did against Iraq / Osirak, 20+yrs ago. They already posses the military capability to do so.
3) The US is FAR from 'stretched too far' in Iraq. Liberal bullshit rhetoric at its worst. We have less than 5% of our current total military in Iraq. And only some 15% of our ground forces.
4) There isn't going to be any ground invasion of Iran. It is unneeded.

The 'options' are simple. Crippling bomb strikes on the distributed nuclear weapons labs within Iran. repeat as necessary to keep the program from making any progress. A parallel series of decapitation strikes on the Iranian Mullahs. Another parallel effort to arm and support the burgeoning youth rebellion, already bubbling in Iran.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 9:33:45 AM EST
In law school instead of winning an argument you can attack the scenario instead. I am not in law school. We deal with what we have...
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 10:14:24 AM EST
First we would need to inform all our allies ,and use them to put pressure on Iran.Russia would be a good one to get to agree to back us up in any way necessary. Inform Iran that the program will be dismantled or we are ready to take any action we deem fit to take ,including nuclear strikes.and since Israel will lob a few there we would only have to add a few.Have all allies make it very clear that they are completely outnumbered and find thier program a threat to their societies enough that they are willing to do what it take to stop it, one way or another.Tell the iranians that it would be a shame to destroy a great civilization such as theirs(not)but in the interest of most of the world it could happen.i Think it would be a good time to show troop movements and preparations,reconflights,a few nuclear subs docked in the persian gulf ect.If they dont stop then well,let israel hit the facilities.Convey our apologies for the rash action but in any case if they do not back down more of the same will occur.If after all of this they are too stubborn to comply turn it into a wasteland one location at a time.A million man isnt much good when a nuclear bomb lands on top of them.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 10:32:54 AM EST
Well, Iran must know Israel has nukes, so a mini Cold War would ensue. Iranian nukes are not a threat to us because we can trace it. If some terrorists use Iranian material for an attack on the US they know we would hold them responsible with tragic consequences to them.

I don't like the idea of being threatened by either country. I'd tell Israel to cool it. Public denounciation of Israel might actually help in the negotiations with the Muslim world.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 10:35:04 AM EST
Israel is estimated to have around 50 nukes. So whats the problem if Israel nukes Iran?
After Israel nuked Iran, who among the remaining arab nations would be stupid enough to attack Israel?
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 10:40:11 AM EST
Israel can handle the threat, and they know that we will likely stay out altogether unless the entire region erupts from the north end of Africa to Maylasia. Turkey, Russia, China, and India will contain it along their borders. France, Italy, Spain, and Greece will control the Med. The UN wil fuck around in the Balkans barely keeping a lid on there. Britain and the US will rattle sabers; the rest of the players know that the US really isn't stretched all that{/u] thin and will try to placate those two countries.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 10:44:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
In law school instead of winning an argument you can attack the scenario instead. I am not in law school. We deal with what we have...

What you have is a liberal fuckwit of a teacher, that needs to have his 'scenario' shoved up his ass. Stand up to him. You are PAYING for the "privilege" of him propagandizing you.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 10:46:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 10:47:55 AM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
Iran declares they have developed a nuclear weapon, Israel tells us they will attack within the week unless the US does. US is stretched too far for our present responsibilities, much less a new one.

I question your premise.

1) We COULD deal with Iraq AND Iran at the same time.

2) IF Israel attacked Iran, we'd have to deal with it anyhow.

Invading a country three times the size of Iraq witha real million man army is simply not an option. You are a National Security analyst, and the NSAdvisor needs options to give the President. What can you offer him?

Note: this is not high school so keep it a bit high-level, ok? And the lenguage of the scenario is VERY important, so read it carefully.



Brutal, bunker busting, relentless, on EVERY suspected site.
No need for boots on the ground, UNLESS, there is intell that would support a Raid on a SPECIFIC site.
Otherwise, Bunker bust.
EVEN Nuclear bunker busters.


Whatever our next move, be it Syria, Iran, or Korea...

It has to be hardcore, swift, and without a hint of vaccilation.
A post election Bush will have that "well, now I can act accordingly" vibe....
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:55:40 AM EST
for all of the 'go in and strike' guys. Where would you go in and strike? Everyone knows they learned from Osirak and spread out their program with all - ALL - all ALL - ALL (unanimous in stratfor, JANES and UN opinion) ALL of their key sites spread out over the ENTIRE country in underground sites. So where would you strike?

And what if you missed. Iran doesn't have the TaepoDongs yet, much less the newer ones. They can't reach us. So what would the parking lot known as Iran do then? So how ya think they are gonna get back at us? It's called a suitcase... and it only takes one.

Bad answer.

and as regards....

What you have is a liberal fuckwit of a teacher, that needs to have his 'scenario' shoved up his ass. Stand up to him. You are PAYING for the "privilege" of him propagandizing you.


Actually we're all paying his salary at DHS - maritime intelligence. He's very smart and very center of road politically in a Council of Foriegn Relations kind of way. E.g. he's from the crowd that didn't buy wmd in iraq but agreed with the war for all the right reasons, and stands up for the war against the REAL lefties on campus.

But the scenario holds true nonetheless, we're not invading a country with a standing army of a million, be it Korea, Iran or anyone else with an army that size.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 11:57:26 AM EST
and of course i'd LOVE to see that parking lot constructed, but that's the wrong answer. wrong for our iran policy, would DESTROY our credibiltiy in Iraq and would really set us back in terms of the region.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:01:03 PM EST
Launch Air Strikes to take out Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Facilities.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:02:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 3:46:06 PM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
for all of the 'go in and strike' guys. Where would you go in and strike? Everyone knows they learned from Osirak and spread out their program with all - ALL - all ALL - ALL (unanimous in stratfor, JANES and UN opinion) ALL of their key sites spread out over the ENTIRE country in underground sites. So where would you strike?

If you are allowed to come up with the scenario, can't WE assume that there is SOME decent intell?
Or are we to assume the US is in the worst and a most incompetent situation possible?



And what if you missed. Iran doesn't have the TaepoDongs yet, much less the newer ones. They can't reach us. So what would the parking lot known as Iran do then? So how ya think they are gonna get back at us? It's called a suitcase... and it only takes one.

Bad answer.

It's only a bad answer, if the US is as incompetent as this scenario insists on implying.



and as regards....

What you have is a liberal fuckwit of a teacher, that needs to have his 'scenario' shoved up his ass. Stand up to him. You are PAYING for the "privilege" of him propagandizing you.


Actually we're all paying his salary at DHS - maritime intelligence. He's very smart and very center of road politically in a Council of Foriegn Relations kind of way. E.g. he's from the crowd that didn't buy wmd in iraq but agreed with the war for all the right reasons, and stands up for the war against the REAL lefties on campus.

But the scenario holds true nonetheless, we're not invading a country with a standing army of a million, be it Korea, Iran or anyone else with an army that size.

Again, the scenario does not "hold true", because it makes too many suppositions.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:16:08 PM EST
ssbn!
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:16:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By lokt:
DK - problem is, the material in a nuke has a specific atomic signatre that could be traced back to the U.S.




Haven`t we bought a lot of nuclear material from the Russians and their Commonwealth of Independent STates? Just put some of that into the mix, it makes the accident scenario more plausible.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 12:21:25 PM EST

Again, the scenario does not "hold true", because it makes too many suppositions.

how so
that iran has the bomb,
that israel wouldn't let that stand for long,
that they'd consult the US first,
that it is not in the US interest to 'bomb' Iran in any way,
or that we don't have one percent of the resources we'd need to invade a country with a modern army and a million men.

Hey, I love the army, wee - GO TROOPS!!! yay. I got a ribbon on my car and I adopt-many-a-soldiers. I feel for them when they get hurt, I'm proud and thankful when they succeed.

That doesn't change the fact that we do not have enough men to do anything other than a half assed job in Afghanistan and a good job in Iraq.

You think we got enough free resources to deter N Korea or Iran from threatening our firends, or to prevent genocide in Africa or narco-terrorism in S America.

What are you on?

I will put money on the line that you think China is a threat to us.
(hint: they're not. you don't own 75% of a nations outstanding bonds, as they do, if you're enemies.)
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:05:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 6:43:01 PM EST by Cans4you]

What can you offer him?


A hint at the distance from the Persian Gulf (which the israelis are well aware of) to the nuclear facilities in Iran, the furthest being about 1550+- miles from one location. As many whatever it is they are launching from their subs, the same for their planes if used to hit the northern most bases.

All of our inventory of patriot and newer experimental ground to air and air to air intercept missles, as well as offer Most Army and Marine S/F (S/S stay in Iraq) to work jointly with theirs for a couple months to help prevent small groups of whomever slipping into israel with any thing Radiological.

The availability of SAR if needed in Iraq, our support and luck and a god speed.

And the comment: The next 30 years are going to be very interesting, stopping this WAR is not as easy as most make it sound, it's already a World War..... most don't want to or won't understand that until something that dwarfs 9/11 happends.

No matter how much people want peace, organized Warfare has been practiced solely by Humans and Ants of all the species on the Planet. It's a natural characteristic of our species, sometimes there is peace, now there is going to be war for a while.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:19:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
for all of the 'go in and strike' guys. Where would you go in and strike? Everyone knows they learned from Osirak and spread out their program with all - ALL - all ALL - ALL (unanimous in stratfor, JANES and UN opinion) ALL of their key sites spread out over the ENTIRE country in underground sites. So where would you strike?

And what if you missed. Iran doesn't have the TaepoDongs yet, much less the newer ones. They can't reach us. So what would the parking lot known as Iran do then? So how ya think they are gonna get back at us? It's called a suitcase... and it only takes one.

Bad answer.

and as regards....

What you have is a liberal fuckwit of a teacher, that needs to have his 'scenario' shoved up his ass. Stand up to him. You are PAYING for the "privilege" of him propagandizing you.


Actually we're all paying his salary at DHS - maritime intelligence. He's very smart and very center of road politically in a Council of Foriegn Relations kind of way. E.g. he's from the crowd that didn't buy wmd in iraq but agreed with the war for all the right reasons, and stands up for the war against the REAL lefties on campus.

But the scenario holds true nonetheless, we're not invading a country with a standing army of a million, be it Korea, Iran or anyone else with an army that size.


We invaded Iraq, the 4th largest military country in the world. Don't think Iran or Korea would be much of a problem if China and Russia butt out.

CW
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:24:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 1:25:25 PM EST by raven]
Coup d'etat of the ruling mullahs. Smart bomb their houses, assassinate them, cause chaos in the capital, combined with comprehensive bombing raids on all known nuke sites.

Incite revolution with the student liberal movement, broadcast propaganda over satellite tv that the mullahs are dead and the Islamic Republic is gone. Smart bomb all government, police, and intelligence facilities and Revolutionary Guard HQ.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:26:54 PM EST
raven gets points. but we don't have the best reputation when it comes to supporting shiite revolutions. (1991).
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:27:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:31:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gunslinger808:

Originally Posted By lokt:
DK - problem is, the material in a nuke has a specific atomic signatre that could be traced back to the U.S.



Like we don't have several of the "missing" nukes from the old Soviet Union?
Credible deniability.



What would people think then? The Soviets have returned?
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:40:10 PM EST
Easy, use a stealth bomber or two to drop smallish nukes on Iran's sites where they are developing nuclear bombs, and then express tons of concern and sympathy for the "accident" they had with their nuclear program.

Indignantly deny any suggestion that we had anything to do with their accident. Offer to send aid to help the poor primitive bastards who got bruned playing with fire.

(and make sure that North Korea understand how easy it is for such accidents to happen).


Use Soviet materials.

Let N.Korea know they are due for an "accident" too. Suggest that Syria just stay cool while we excavate the pits our sats saw around their bases with all those Iraqi trucks. We will gladly remove that stuff before something bad happens.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 1:43:53 PM EST

It does not change our position as the "Great Satan".


this is my option number 3's explanaiton. It's like a teenage daughter/. nothing you can do wil be cool to her. so to, nothing the satan can do will be right, so fuck 'em.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 3:24:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 4:13:01 PM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By chapperjoe:

Again, the scenario does not "hold true", because it makes too many suppositions.

how so
that iran has the bomb,
that israel wouldn't let that stand for long,
that they'd consult the US first,
that it is not in the US interest to 'bomb' Iran in any way,
or that we don't have one percent of the resources we'd need to invade a country with a modern army and a million men.

Right there. Stop.
Your entire premise is that we, for some reason "have to invade", in order to deal with Iran.
That just isn't true. It's a novice assumption. Also, that we are "spread too thin" is an assumption that is not necessarily true, because it is based on your OTHER assumption (must have enough troops to invade).



Hey, I love the army, wee - GO TROOPS!!! yay. I got a ribbon on my car and I adopt-many-a-soldiers. I feel for them when they get hurt, I'm proud and thankful when they succeed.

I'm sure they really appreciate your praise, even though it is dripping with sarcasm. Gosh knows I do.



That doesn't change the fact that we do not have enough men to do anything other than a half assed job in Afghanistan and a good job in Iraq.

Good luck on your paper. Obviously you don't REALLY want input. Obviously you already know everything. Afghanistan is a success. YOU just aren't familiar with the mission.

In fact NONE of your questions OR answers deall stategically with the enemy or the mission, just look:


Originally Posted By chapperjoe:
well, i have a page or two on each of my options....

1. Ask them what they want and give it to them
2. Ask them what they want and negotiate with them
3. Do Nothing
4. Ask them what they want and withhold it
5. Allow punitive actions via proxy
6. Take punitive actions alone

All of your options are political. They are "State Deptartment" options. Listen to your language... "punitive actions". What the hell is a "punitive action"? It's a political move, NOT a stategic one. You ignore the possibility of targetting and destroying anything that will affect the situation.
Think more like a General. Ignore the politics. Think in terms of mission, commander's intent, Enemy's Most Probable Course of Action, and your desired "End State".
Then if you must, throw in politics.
But not first.




You think we got enough free resources to deter N Korea or Iran from threatening our firends, or to prevent genocide in Africa or narco-terrorism in S America.

What are you on?


What am I on?
I'm on my nineteenth year of service as a Marine Officer, who's spent a life involved in politics, expeditionary warfare, strategy and employment of troops and weapons systems. My roomate (junior to me) when I was in Third Marines is now you Professor's BOSS at DHS (acting head of your professor's division).

What are you on? Condescending asshole pills?



I will put money on the line that you think China is a threat to us.
(hint: they're not. you don't own 75% of a nations outstanding bonds, as they do, if you're enemies.)


Your assumptions are as pedestrian as your insistance to over-control the question.
It reflects poorly on your critical thinking abilities, and your creativity.
Next time you ask a question, maybe you should listen, and not just spout.
I DO hope this isn't your major...

You do this when you ask questions about weapons, too. You ask a question, even though you've already made up your mind. Then you get mad when our answers don't match yours.
That might work for you, when you're deciding on a new rifle, it will NOT work in acedemia.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 4:17:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 4:28:26 PM EST by chapperjoe]
How you can be supermarine and get so much so wrong...



a) fabulous... a marine, of all types of soldiers claiming we don't need troops to invade a country with a million man army.

b) afghanistan is a success... well, shwew thank god. Fortunately, one day it will be, but it isn't yet. that's not a reflection on the marines, the armed forces, you or the president for that matter. We can't put a soldier on every inch of every porous border. Improvements have been made, e.g. sexual plurality, a democratization of most of the country, but can we call it stable, i think not.


c) as regards my paper, your insistence that Iran is the enemy, why? Cause the have a nuke? Countries don't develop nukes for one reason and one reason alone. It's quite logical to say that they developed nukes to, for example, show the religious revolutionary guard that the political leadership is in control of key institutions, e,g, the military. They could have devloped nuclear weapons to be bribed by the US to give them a 'seat at the table' re: Iraq and other regional affairs. There's no rule that says they developed nukes to use them or to threaten to use them. The key here (at least I think) in my professor scenario is that they 'declared' their status. Why declare if you're going to use them? The US and Israel certainly have enough TMD resources in the area to defend against a sole weapon, so why declare a sole weapon? A sole weapon can be defended against.

d) besides for flaming every thread I've ever had, you are living proof that opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

e)

I'm on my nineteenth year of service as a Marine Officer, who's spent a life involved in politics, expeditionary warfare, strategy and employment of troops and weapons systems.


This is why there's civilian leadership of the military.

And don't question my patriotism or support of soldiers who do their jobs and then SHUT THE FUCK UP. I think we have enough former officers blowing their intellectual loads on TV... I suspect you sir are a future pundit.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 4:29:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 4:39:13 PM EST by chapperjoe]
and this is my major, well was. I'm getting a masters now. Two ears one mouth thing. Learn then talk. It's much better than spouting whatever comes up in your head and then trying to fit it into reality.....

Like this gem:

Then you get mad when our answers don't match yours.

No, there were some great insights in the thread that really helped me formulate my paper. None of them were yours.

You sir are a product of a military establishment in search of the ever elusive post cold war near-peer competitor in order to justify your inflated budgets and unnecesary weapons systems. First it was Iraq, then China, soon it will be North Korea and maybe just maybe one day Iran.

Always searching for a fight to justify your F-22's and Crusader's, when the F15 and Paladin will do.

I'm very sorry that your 20 year career still has you thinking the 1980 mindset, but the strategic reality has changed.

The largest Shiite country cannot be 'bombed' while shiites represent 40% of an Iraq that YOUR comrades and my troops are patrolling - that would be signing their death warrant.

There is no way in HELL under ANY circumstances that the arab and muslim world would accept anotehr western invasion of another muslim country.

AND where are you gonna find the resources for your war. You gonna bomb underground bunkers? how deep are they, how redundant, where are they, how many fake ones? How many MOABS you think we have? You gonna nuke them? Not in one million years. Sure you can invade Iran, just empty all of South Korea and call up the boy scouts. And they're really gonna hold on to that nuke while we invade right? It's not going straight to Sadr city. Dolt.

Link Posted: 10/31/2004 4:32:50 PM EST
Should Offer Israel use of all reasonable resources of US government to eliminate the nuclear threat they face using conventional precision weapons. (Of note, Israel has attacked nuclear facilities in the region in the past using F-16's flying fast and low.) Make note during our offer that we have troops currently in Iraq. Should any attack on Israel place our troops in "more" danger, this will be a direct threat to the interests of the United States. We would not be, of course, able to further clarify what action we would take, but it would be swift and proportional to the damage inflicted upon our troops. Explain that confidence can be placed in our ability to gather the necessary intelligence and resources to attack the pinpoint source of the threat. Should they not accept our offer, we do require sufficient official notice so we may prepare our interests in the region for the event. Should sufficient notice not be made, we would consider the insufficient notice as a direct threat to the interests of the United States. Hopefully, they would decide to accept our offer.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 4:38:01 PM EST
I have this feeling that shortly after our election, AWACS supported Israeli F16I's with our bunker busters will be over Iran--regardless of the results of the election. They may get help from some help from our B-2's.IIRC, they can carry 80 precision smart bombs. The US can decide to take credit for some, all or none of the action.

What would that do to your assignment?
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 4:42:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 4:47:05 PM EST by chapperjoe]
I personally would love to see option 5. That's what i recommend actually. A suez like operation with a full scale israeli operation of commandos and bombers eliminating every site on the list and crippling the revolutionary guards coupled with assasination of all the major relgious autocrats. We then step in ala suez 1956 and say 'bad israel', and you know what, you guys probably need peacekeepers now to 'protect' you from Israel now that you have no govenrment.

Get Russia, Iraq and Pakistan to act as peacekeepers till the (ugh) UN can hold real elections there.

Almost the same as Osirak - just add regime change to the laundry list.

And Cincinnatus; nothing personal here, but you are ALWAYS on my ass.
If I god forbid answer back please excuse me.
I sincerely believe that you and reality are far far away, and it's kinda scary seeing as you're a long-time Marine. You think we can take care of Iran alone? Are you serious?
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 4:45:13 PM EST
The danger in nuclear material is not knowing where it comes from. If you don't know who it comes from then you don't know who to retaliate against and you don't have a MAD situation.

That's the reason why missing material from Russia is such a concern. That's why Iraq's program was a threat.

Iran's material is not a threat. They know if they "lose" any material that we will hold them responsible and Bam will look like a Sunday outing. The reason they want nukes is power, and not like you're thinking. Sure it makes them look good in the Muslim world, but more importantly we can't afford to have a country with nukes with a .gov that could be overthrown. It would force our hand to "support" their gov't. We are doing the same thing with Pakistan, and believe you me they know that and have learned from it.

Libya on the other hand, was too far away from such a program to make a run. So his options were limited. About the only thing he could do to ensure he had power is play ball on WMD.

I have to confess ignorance on the subject of NK's nukes. I'm not sure where they are getting their material.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 4:51:09 PM EST
You need to go back to the basics on this one, essay number two in:

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top