Skip to comments.We should nuke Iran
Posted on 09/02/2006 8:31:20 AM PDT by GMMAC
We should nuke Iran
Saturday, September 2, 2006
By MICHAEL COREN
It is surely obvious now to anybody with even a basic understanding of history, politics and the nature of fascism that something revolutionary has to be done within months -- if not weeks -- if we are to preserve world peace.
Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal. It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand.
The tragedy is that innocent people will die. But not many. Iran's missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran regime. They are dedicated to war and, thus, will die in war.
Frankly, it would be churlish of the civilized world to deny martyrdom to those who seem so intent on its pursuance. Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran will save thousands if not millions of lives.
The spasm of reaction from many will be that this is barbaric and unacceptable. Yet a better response would be to ask if there is any sensible alternative.
Diplomacy, kindness and compromise have failed and the Iranian leadership is still obsessed with all-out war against anybody it considers an enemy.
Its motives are beyond question, its capability equally so. It is spending billions of dollars on a whole range of anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-personnel missiles, rockets and ballistic weapons:
The Shahab 3ER missile, with a range of more than 2,000 km, and the BM25 and accompanying launchers, which are so powerful that they can hit targets in Europe. Raad missiles with a range of 350km. The Misaq anti-aircraft missile, which can be fired from the shoulder. The Fajar 3 radar-evading missile and the Ajdar underwater missile, which travels at an extraordinarily high speed and is almost impossible to intercept. The Zaltal and the Fatah 110 rocket, the Scud B and Scud C and the BM25 with a range of 3,500 kms.
Iran is also developing enormous propellant ballistic missiles and began a space program almost a decade ago that will enable it to bomb the United States. It is also assumed in intelligence circles that Tehran has Russian Kh55 cruise missiles stolen from Ukraine which are now being copied in large numbers by Iranian scientists.
Comparisons to the Nazis in the 1930s are unfair -- to the Nazis. Hitler had the French army, the largest in Europe, on his border and millions of Soviet infantry just a few hours march away. Iran has no aggressive enemies in the region.
Its fanatical leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, controls a brutal police state, finances international terror and provokes bloody wars in foreign countries. It is unimaginably wealthy because of its oil revenues and is committed, in its leader's words, to "rolling back 300 years of Western ascendancy" and wiping another nation, Israel, from the face of the earth.
A conventional attack would be insufficient because Iran and its allies seem only to listen to power and threat. Better limited pain now than universal suffering in five years.
The usual suspects will complain. The post-Christian churches, the Marxists, the fellow travelers and fifth columnists. But then, the same sort of people moaned and condemned in 1938. They were clearly wrong then.
They would be just as wrong now.
It's long overdue.
We won't and the left will cause many Americans to die.
Wow ...... and from Canada too.
We should be ready to nuke Iran, but we should not do so until they jump the shark.
Those warmongering Canadians again.
Whether or not we nuke them, we need to threaten or use a major attack on them. Iran and Syria are killing our soldiers and allies in Iraq, and we are on teh verge of being driven out (via the democrats) rather than telling those terrorist states to stop, or else. And I favor early use of the "or else".
You are exactly right except most of the entire world will have many casualties. And Russia and China thinks they are safe. Wait until this "little Hitler"conquers most of Europe. Hitler wanted the world and if they had the bomb, nothing could stop them. This time the bomb will be had by all, and it won't take much. Funny how stupid most of the world is!
There aren't that many(in positions of power) that feel that way here either. History has been a forgetten commodity in our public schools for ages... we are now paying the price for this blatant slight.
Nobody want war but the world also waits to the brink of too late.
Which particular species of shark haven't they jumped? By the time they cross another threshold, it may be too late.
I don't care if we use tomahawks, bow and arrows or nukes, let's just do it BEFORE the nut job gets his filthy paws on his own nukes.
I'm in agreement that the little worm seemingly running things needs to be muzzled .... or planted in the sand.
...but what punishment do we pass on the many Persians that want political change in Iran?
These people are not ignorant sand morons ..... they are attractive, educated and represent a very real and probable stability in the region.
There has to be another way to bury the mini dictator wanna-be than smashing atoms over Iran.
This form the Toronto Sun ???? Will wonders never cease.
Not just Iran.
They can't move fast enough. Our military can burn their infrastructure to the ground the same day that they begin to move.
Put the fear of God into 'em. Show them that our God is more powerful than their god. Sounds primitive but it worked with Japan and it would work again.
hmmm reminds me of an old classic....
bomb, bomb, bomb
bomb, bomb Iran.
I have no problem with this.
Wrong...nukes are a primary weapon for Imanutjob and if he wants them then we should have no reservations about showing him just what they can do.
Countries with Nuclear Weapons Capability
Acknowledged: Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States
Unacknowledged: Israel Seeking: North Korea,1 Iran2
Abandoned: South AfricaConstructed but then voluntarily dismantled six uranium bombs. Belarus, Kazakhstan, UkraineWhen Soviet Union broke up, these former states possessed nuclear warheads that they have since given up.
I agree with the total destruction of their plant and infrastructure, the sooner the better, so they don't scatter it around a la WMD in Iraq.
But it is not necessary to use nukes to do this, just a whole lot of conventional ordnance, such as daisy-cutters and JDAMS.
Why the finnickiness? Nukes are a threshold, largely psychological, that we don't want to ANYONE to cross. Dresden showed how conventional ordnance can accomplish the same thing.
Plus, we want to keep the oil spoils clean once we own Iran.
Talk about the energy crisis being over! Ten cent a gallon gasoline again. And the US as a member of OPEC.
Now you're talking.
Canada has Nukes? Guess you guys have been doing something with the nuclear waste from the Candu(sp?) reactors;)
For the record, I think this may be the Free Worlds only option. Iran has to be stopped, and very soon!!!
Thank you James Earl Carter, for letting Iran go down this path, now 25 years later, we have to clean up your mess!!!
Let the games begin !!
No, we shouldn't. If we were inclined to kill some Iranians, we need to go after Mr. Iwannajihad and his cohorts. Most other Iranians are not complicit in his plans and machinations, so why punish them for the actions of their leaders?
I love words like Dasiy-cutter and Thermobaric, almost as much as the smell of Napalm in the morning.
Let's assess, fairly, to all whom blame is due: Carter, Bush I, Clinton, and thus far, Bush II. Same goes for North Korea.
I say take out Iran's nuclear capability now. There is a dynamics that the UN does not want the world to understand. Iran is using the tactic of spreading their resources out a wide as possible and putting what they have in hardened bunkers near population centers. Getting at these bunkers may require atomic bunker busters; hardly something you would want to set off in a population center. If they were to start producing nukes, guess where they would be? We need to derail their production operation by hitting the processing plants and the material already produced. Such would put a huge economic dent in the production operation. The longer we put off this necessary the harder it gets. Like the doctor said, "If we don't cut off the fingernail now, it will be the arm later."
This is the same logic that is losing in Iraq. Don't we ever learn! In WWII, many innocents died because of their leaders; and in Iran, they elected this animal. We need to not worry about those very civilians that empowered this animal and worry about the rest of us who love peace and a world free of a nuclear Iran.
I agree with this assessment. Sooner or later this will be required. If we act soon it will just be their nuclear and military sites. If we wait, it will be Tehran too.
Wow! In Canadian MSM no less!
This is precisely why nukes should be used. We have yet to demonstrate that we really are serious about the issue of jihad, and it will never cease getting worse until we do.
No need to use the huge 50 megaton variety, but tactical ones on all military and government sites that are hardened, or too large to be dealt with by conventional weapons.
Think of the salutory effect it would instantly have on Syria's behavior, and we could also then credibly demand Pakistan give up their nukes before Musharraf gets deposed by a jihadi fanatic.
You can put Canada in the"abandoned" column. In the 1950s we had American-produced nukes on the Bomarc surface-to-air missiles but they were returned to the USA. We do have the capability to produce a nuke in fairly short order but all of our technology is currently used for civilian production of electricity and medical radioisotopes (that's the official story, anyway).
Topic drift- IIRC Canada is the world's no. 1 producer of radioisotopes.
If I was going to use nuclear weapons regarding Iran, I think I would hit North Korea simultaneously. There are political and tactical reasons for this:
1. On the political side, you get just as much PR blowback from one bomb on one day than if you use 30 that day. It's the Michael Corleone approach--do 'em all at once.
2. North Korea is the principal contractor for Iran's program. You wake up a year after nuking Iran only to find the same threat gathering elsewhere in the Muslim world, backed by North Korea.
I don't agree with the Toronto Sun writer that only a nuke will do in Iran. I think the facilities can be made functionally useless no matter how difficult they are to directly bomb if you take out the supporting infrastructure around them with conventional (if extremely high powered) weapons. If you eliminate access and egress, logisitics, you eliminate the facility itself. Kind of a "no-fly zone" approach. I'm not sure the Sun writer understands all the options available or contingencies in play (or, that any of us does). His heart is in the right place, though.
We should nuke Canada too.
Maple-syrup lovin' hosehat wearin' beer swillin' moose-maters, all.
Does Canada have a nuke?
As for his remarks on killing innocent civilians, he and a lot of people should understand what the Allies did to Germany in WWII.
No civilised nation will light a nuke fuse first. No Western nation wants to win a war any longer. Just the same old pin pricks. Truman had it right. IMOHO
I'm with you. Do it NOW!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.