Reply With Quote
No country is gonna use nukes, it would be M.A.D.
Although a problem now is a state-less terrorist nuke attack would not offer a clear target to counter-attack with nuke or conventional.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...t-attack-iran/
Joint Chiefs Chair: No, No, No. Don’t Attack Iran.
By Noah Shachtman
NEW YORK CITY — We are all screwed if Iran gets a nuke. And we may be just as screwed if the United States attacks Iran to keep Tehran from getting that nuke.
Okay, I’m paraphrasing a bit. But that’s the core of the message from America’s top military officer, who reiterated today his canyon-deep reservations about any military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Sure, U.S. strikes might set back Tehran’s atomic weapons program — for a while. But the “unintended consequences” of a hit on Iran’s nuclear facilities could easily outweigh the benefits of that delay, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen told a forum at Columbia University.
“Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome,” Mullen said. “In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”
At Columbia, Mullen also pushed back on a New York Times report that the Obama administration essentially had no strategy for dealing with Iran if Tehran got to the threshold of building a nuke – without quite going over.
“What the mainstream of that article talked about… is that we have no policy and that the implication is that we’re not working on it. I assure you, this is as complex a problem as there is in our country. And we have expended extraordinary amounts of time and effort to figure that out — to get that right,” Mullen said. “This has a focus. The focus of the President of the United States. I am his principal military adviser, and it has from the moment I have spent any time with him — even before he has sworn in,” Mullen said.
But the admiral didn’t detail what strategy all that time and all that focus had generated.
“It has been worked and it continues to be worked,” Mullen added. “If there was an easy answer, we would’ve picked it off the shelf.”
Analysts have speculated that Iran might respond with terror strikes or naval blockades in the Persian Gulf if its nuclear facilities came under attack. Mullen declined to speculate what the results of a strike might be, except to say: they would probably be unexpected, and they would probably be bad.
“From my perspective,” Mullen added, “the last option is to strike.”
But simply accepting Iran as a nuclear state won’t work either, Mullen added. Again: it’s the unintended consequences.
“I worry about Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability. There are those that say, ‘C’mon Mullen, get over that. They’re gonna get it. Let’s deal with that.’ Well, dealing with it has [results] that I don’t think we’ve all thought through. I worry other countries in the region will then seek -– actually, I know they will seek — nuclear weapons as well. And the spiral headed in that direction is a very bad outcome,” Mullen said.
When it comes to a nuclear Iran, none of the outcomes look very good.
No country is gonna use nukes, it would be M.A.D.
Although a problem now is a state-less terrorist nuke attack would not offer a clear target to counter-attack with nuke or conventional.
Exactly. Which is why the Armed Services, I believe, are going to transition into a quasi-police force. Classical warfare doesn't work very well on insurgencies; history shows that only through long-term security measures can an insurgency be defeated. And the military isn't really geared towards that... yet. The Army has certainly been moving in that direction for a few years now though.
Iran is posturing itself for something bigger on the global stage. N. Korea is a cakewalk compared to what these idiots are going to do.
Take the chance and strategically blow em up. Picking the 2 options, I say we give them a nice mushroom cloud.
Pretty sure that China, Russia, and pretty much every other nation on the globe would have a problem with us pre-emptively nuking Iran.
What are they going to do?
Tell us.
Obama is a war President. He will eventually give the order to fire upon Iran.
Have you forgotten that this is Iran we are talking about here? Ask yourself this; "What has Iran done for the betterment of that region?" This country has threatend one of our if not the only true ally in that region being Israel.
Tell me
get it.............
You didn't answer my question.
What are they going to do?
Ahmadinejad (sp?) has been very vocal of what his intentions are. They are not just petty threats regarding palestine and Israel. Look, your talking to a war-hawk GOP kind of guy who believes in shoot first, as questions later. Unless you've been living under a rock, Ahmadinejad has made it clear what he feels about Jews, the holocaust, Israel, etc, etc, *(and no, just because some Jews that he hasn't screwed with just yet live in Iran don't mean squat of what his intentions are).
He also believeS he is the second coming of whatever, Islamic prophet and believes he must conquer that region for whatever reason Allah has.
You still haven't answered the question.
What are they going to do?
C.D.,
They are going to be this cool country who listens to it's people's voice, have free elections, treat their women with equality, lend a helping hand to Israel should it find itself in a natural disaster. It's going to build all these neat nuke plants and share it's energy with the entire middle-east including Iraq and Ahmadinejad will win the noble peace prize for loving everyone, including Christians. It's going to build Allah-Land, just like Disneyland and have this gargantuan campaign to invite tourists all over the world.
Silly me for taking your bait. You know what I am talking about.
Good day Mr. Dump.
Why can't you just say what they are going to do?
TheMan, did you read the article? The one that states that bombing Iran wouldn't make sense?
Also not an answer.
Tell us what Iran will do.
Stopping processed fuel inside Iran would be more productive than Bombing. I am ok if America's policy with Iran was officially regime change but a majority of Iran's population are for developing the nuke. Just going to war with the Mullahs wouldn't work in this particular situation.
I read the article LnGrrR. I was just adding my 2 cents to the whole Iran thing. You've got to keep on eye on these fellas.
Their arms are sold to kill Lebanese, Israelis, Americans and Brittons to name a few, right now. They train and fund terrorist groups (JAM, SCIRI, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc)
Plus ears. The dumbass said he wants to wipe Israel off the map.
I say bomb them if they don't release those 3 hikers.
More than justifies in my book, kidding or not.
What about all the other people who live in Iran besides their jerkwad President? Do they all deserve to get the big one dropped on them, too?
How the are we gonna fight 3 wars at 1 time? and iran
So are you saying they are going to sell nukes to them?
You all are such pussies when asked a direct question
Do you all think Iran is going to use a nuke in a first strike?
Yes or no.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
