Iran Is Asking For It

[302_plus_a_few]

These guys are asking for it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_missile

Who else wishes we could use nuclear weapons on idiots like these? The new Iranian president is a head case for sure.

[SVTVenom]

What I woud like to know is how they would stop the U.S. from launching ICBM's and not even have to "invade" until they are all gone?

[46Tbird]

two words: tactical nuke

[AL P]

We won't do anything until all avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. Then we won't act by ourselves.

Also, what these clowns seem to forget is that we wouldn't want to occupy their country. All we would want to do is destroy their reactor. That's a mission that wouldn't take more than a day or two.

[D]

We won't do anything until all avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. Then we won't act by ourselves.

Also, what these clowns seem to forget is that we wouldn't want to occupy their country. All we would want to do is destroy their reactor. That's a mission that wouldn't take more than a day or two.

But in doing that there is the potential to run in to other issues. Say Syria really does have Iraq's nuclear weapons. You know Iran and Syria are buddies. So who is to say that the minute we launch ICBMs at Iran (or what ever else in our arsenal we decide to use) Syria doesn't fire right back at us? I know we are required to use different forms of diplomacy to resolve issues like these, but what really happens when diplomacy isn't the right way to go?

[Denny]

But in doing that there is the potential to run in to other issues. Say Syria really does have Iraq's nuclear weapons. You know Iran and Syria are buddies. So who is to say that the minute we launch ICBMs at Iran (or what ever else in our arsenal we decide to use) Syria doesn't fire right back at us? I know we are required to use different forms of diplomacy to resolve issues like these, but what really happens when diplomacy isn't the right way to go?
I really don't think there were any nuclear weapons in Iraq to send to Syria. Bio/chem weapons, yes. Nuclear, no. Whatever Syria has was bought by Syria from Russia, if anything.

My solution is just hire the A Team. I think their rates are pretty good about now and they've got one hell of a track record going.

[mikeb]

With that nut leading iran I expect that they are itching to use one of those new weapons and may start the war themselves sooner or later by launching them at a US ship. Clearly from that article they want us out of there and may think that by shooting at a ship we'll leave. Big mistake. I expect bush would bomb iran flat.

[AL P]

Syria has no means to attack us outside of support for terrorist groups, which they already use. They can hate us all they want, they won't do shit.

Not only that but who the heck said anything about ICBM's?? We are talking about a surgical strike to destroy their facilities. Tomahawk cruise missiles, stealth bombers and bunker busters. Bye bye reactor!!

But like I said, we aren't going to act alone. We got to wait for the Frenchies, the Germans and the other European fuckwads to come around. The only other option besides that is to release our attack dog named Israel. Essentially, I don't think we'll make another unilateral move like the Iraq war.

[D]

Syria has no means to attack us outside of support for terrorist groups, which they already use. They can hate us all they want, they won't do shit.

Not only that but who the heck said anything about ICBM's?? We are talking about a surgical strike to destroy their facilities. Tomahawk cruise missiles, stealth bombers and bunker busters. Bye bye reactor!!

But like I said, we aren't going to act alone. We got to wait for the Frenchies, the Germans and the other European fuckwads to come around. The only other option besides that is to release our attack dog named Israel. Essentially, I don't think we'll make another unilateral move like the Iraq war.

SVTVenom said something about ICBMs. I'm not saying that's what we'll use. I know we'd use an array of smart bombs, cruise missles, bunker busters, as well as a heavy tonnage of dumb bombs and other assortments. I say we put everything we've given Isreal to use. But Isreal will have their hands full sooner than later with Hamas.

[Oh1Bullitt]

Isreal probably won't go in with us if we go. Like you said they will have their hands full. I don't think that getting france and every one else to go in is going to be a problem. Iran effects every one. Especially those close to it. And just straight up bombing the reactor probably won't happen either. The radiation would leak out everywhere and make a huge mess and kill way to many people. Spec ops will probably go in secure it and it wil be dismantled.

[D]

Isreal probably won't go in with us if we go. Like you said they will have their hands full. I don't think that getting france and every one else to go in is going to be a problem. Iran effects every one. Especially those close to it. And just straight up bombing the reactor probably won't happen either. The radiation would leak out everywhere and make a huge mess and kill way to many people. Spec ops will probably go in secure it and it wil be dismantled.

Forget about the French. They don't support us in anything we do regardless if it has anything to do with them or not. They're a bunch of stubborn asses. To be quite honest with you, you could probably fly a 757 in to the wall of one of those reactor chambers and it wouldn't penatrate. I forget the name of the nuclear power plant...I think it's called Palo Verde...in southwestern Arizona, but after 9-11 when people were speculating about the next "target" it was a hot topic. But the people who built it were saying something about the reactor walls being so many feet thick that they could sustain the impact of any of the planes flown in to their targets on 9-11 and still be fine. And the whole special ops thing...doubtful. It would take a lot more than a few Army Rangers or AFSOC folks to take that place. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few months. I know in October I'll be going back over there, probably either to Ali Al Salem in Kuwait or Balad, Iraq...but either of those places are too damn close to Iran for my taste.

[636ryder]

Yes 90 stang, nuclear reactors are build to withstand the impact of a 747. Glen rose(squaw creek)sp, same thing was built to withstand such potential impact. A BLU-109 warhead would probably get about 1/2 way through. However we all know just because its a reinforced concrete that doesn't mean shit. I've seen several pics where we penetrated Iraq's bunkers in the 1st gulf war. I would think that w/ the precision of our targeting capabilities, if 2 BLU-109's were to hit one after the other it would bust through the walls of the reactor.

However, it'd just be better to do a technique where the pilot drops the munition while pulling up so that it goes up a little bit, then the nose weight brings it straight back down. Do that right into the reactor itself.

[Chopper]

Uh, if one missile doesn't make it through.... we've got more missiles.

[32VfromHell]

there was a big hub-bub about the game kuma/war,a tactical warfighter game with a LOT of military advisors guiding it. One of the scenarios was a spec-ops strike into an iran nuculear reactor, and it was decried as being a VERY unlikely scenario to send spec-ops boys into a HEAVILY guarded area.