Posted on 09/02/2006 8:31:20 AM PDT by GMMAC
We should nuke Iran
Toronto Sun
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.
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.
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
And Tokyo
http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0305/212573.html
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!
I agree with the approach (assassinate the leaders) but not your reasoning.
The Arabs respect applied (not threatened) power, follow their leaders and have cowards as leaders. If you quickly remove the leadership it:
In my opinion this is the path we should have taken in Iraq.
We who? Who will do this, send in troops to clean up the mess and pay for it all? We indeed.
Someone desperately wants the US to be Iran's "daddy" I think.
Let the EU's take care of it this time. I will gladly sit back with a bag of popcorn and cheer on any European country that wants to take out the Nutter.
Now this is a good article.
Think about it...comparisons to Hitler are unfair to Hitler!
Who are Iran's enemies. Where are the threats to her borders?
None and nowhere. Yet, they desire to destroy a people and a nation and moreover desire to reconquer the Persian empire, the Ottoman Empire and all other Empires.
Reading this article is reading sound advice.
Actually, this is not surprising writing for the Toronto Sun. You probably are thinking about the Toronto (Red) Star which is nauseatingly liberal. On the other hand, Michael Coren is frequently all over the map.>/p>
I don't think the slimy socialists/commies will just let the Islamic fascists take over. But thats just me. LOL.
Maybe I'm just wishful thinking but wouldn't it be fun to watch too enemies of the west duke it out?
How's that saying go?...If two of your enemies are fighting , try your best not to interfere.
Iran thus is Europe's problem, is it not? Why should America AGAIN spend its blood and resources to AGAIN come to the rescue of Europe--Thy Name is Cowardice (the subject of another FR discussion thread).
I think a bunch of Syrian bombs might accidentally go off in Iran.
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.