Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Target Iran - Air Strike Options
Globalsecurity ^

Posted on 12/24/2006 10:06:55 AM PST by maquiladora

One potential military option that would be available to the United States includes the use of air strikes on Iranian weapons of mass destruction and missile facilities.

In all, there are perhaps two dozen suspected nuclear facilities in Iran. The 1000-megawatt nuclear plant Bushehr would likely be the target of such strikes. According to the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, the spent fuel from this facility would be capable of producing 50 to 75 bombs. Also, the suspected nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak will likely be targets of an air attack.

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities in an effort to delay or obstruct the Iranian program or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq.

Many aircraft are still in the region supporting Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The United States had aircraft at multiple locations throughout the Persian Gulf, including Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Diego Garcia. While the number of aircraft in the region has declined significantly since the end of major hostilities in Iraq, the United States continues to have some number of F-15Es, F-16s, naval aircraft, and some unidentified number of heavy bombers in the region.

Information regarding how many aircraft are actually in the Persian Gulf region is scant as units are returning to the United States and it is not clear if units are being sent as replacements. By mid-June 2003 there were no longer any AWACs in region and stealth aircraft had long since departed for the United States. Insufficient information regarding available aircraft makes it impossible to predict how many Joint Direct Attack Munition capable aircraft were available for strikes and how many potential aim points this would provide to mission planners.

Redeploying US forces to the region would take a small amount of time, but the absence of significant numbers of stealth aircraft, early warning aircraft, and other assets by September 2004 was a possible indicator that the United States was not actively considering the air strike option. The US had postured a number of strike aircraft to attack North Korea during the first half of 2003, and might make similar preparations in anticipation of a strike against Iran. Alternately, the US might wish to retain the element of surprise, and use heavy bomber forces staging directly from the United States.

Since the end of major hostilities in Iraq the United States has typically kept one aircraft carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf region in support of Iraqi Freedom. Tomahawk cruise missiles deployed on cruisers, destroyers, and submarines could also be used to strike fixed locations. A Carrier Strike Group would typically have about 500 verticle launch system cells, which could mean that roughly 250 Tomahawks would be available for tasking.

CBS News reported on 18 December 2006 that the Bush administration has decided to ramp up the naval presence in the Persian Gulf to send a message to Tehran. CBS reported that an additional aircraft carrier would be added to the Gulf contingent in January 2007. A Pentagon official called the report "premature" and denied knowledge of changes in deployments in the Gulf. The New York Times reported 20 December 2006 that the Bremerton-based aircraft carrier and its strike group could leave weeks earlier than planned as part of a move to increase the U.S. military presence in and around the Middle East. Cmdr. Dave Werner, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, said that no decision had been made about changing the level of naval forces in the region.

Moving up the Stennis’ departure date in January 2006 allows a longer overlap with USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, the carrier currently in the Persian Gulf. Eisenhower deployed 01 October 2006, and could remain on station into March 2007. According to the New York Times story, the move was intended as " ... a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country ... Doubling the number of carriers in the region offers commanders the flexibility of either keeping both strike groups in the Gulf or keeping one near Iran while placing a second carrier group outside the Gulf, where it would be in position to fly combat patrols over Afghanistan or cope with growing violence in the Horn of Africa. ... Senior American officers said the increase in naval power should not be viewed as preparations for any offensive strike against Iran. But they acknowledged that the ability to hit Iran would be increased and that Iranian leaders might well call the growing presence provocative."

Air power “persistence” is essential. During normal cyclic flight operations, a pilot spends a significant amount of time transiting to and from target areas. With the enhanced capabilities the CTF provides, by alternating air plan flight cycles, the CTF is able to maintain a nearly constant air presence over the targeted areas. It is difficult for one CVW to conduct flight operations for much more than about 12 hours before having to stop. However, with the combined striking power of two CVWs, the CTF is able to conduct air operations over a continuous 24-hour cycle. During the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom, USS Enterprise (CVN 65) was operating with USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) off the coast of Afghanistan. When the order to launch air strikes arrived, together, both CVWs flew 24-hours a day.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aintgonnahappen; bombirannow; bombnuclearsites; bomboilpipelines; dreamon; iran
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

1 posted on 12/24/2006 10:06:57 AM PST by maquiladora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
Air strikes don't work, and air power divorced from ground and sea power is a dangerous myth.

If we want to compel Iran, the country will have to be invaded, conquered, and occupied for fifty years.

I happen to think that's a good idea, and that we should.

But I'm quite sure Congress does not.

2 posted on 12/24/2006 10:09:52 AM PST by Jim Noble (To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

Dont forget to attack Ahmadinejhad's house and that of Mullah Khameini. Without these two we wouldnt be attacking anyone.


3 posted on 12/24/2006 10:10:54 AM PST by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
As I see it, this is the most significant point ..."or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq." This should not be a slap that slows the WMD program. It should be a punishing blow to a terror-supporting state that aids in the killing of US servicemen in Iraq. It should be a blow that is a sustained air campaign that destroys Iran's military infrastructure and assures it cannot retaliate in way that will harm the regions security. It should be the death knell to Iran's mad mullahs aspirations of Iranian hegemony in the region.
4 posted on 12/24/2006 10:15:26 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Free Syria and Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel will all be secure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorZIn

Ping


5 posted on 12/24/2006 10:16:18 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Free Syria and Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel will all be secure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

Bush is weak.
He will not get Nancy's permission.


6 posted on 12/24/2006 10:17:30 AM PST by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

One ploy to wake people up at the moment would be to start selling burkas and prayers mats in some highly visible manner... show them at malls, ballgames, or a fashion show.

If nothing works soon, then it won't be just a ploy.


7 posted on 12/24/2006 10:24:14 AM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
"Insufficient information regarding available aircraft makes it impossible to predict how many Joint Direct Attack Munition capable aircraft were available for strikes and how many potential aim points this would provide to mission planners."

This info hasn't been on the front of the nyt yet? I'm shocked!

8 posted on 12/24/2006 10:30:09 AM PST by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Air strikes don't work...

They won't address the underlying problem... state-sponsored, fundamentalist-Islam. At best, you'll retard their progress by getting them to declare war on us and officially attacking our interests/troops/civilians around the world. It will also flush out the 'skunks-in-the-woodpile'... nations who would prefer to see the west emasculated by any means. And that's when we settle 'the-problem-with-Islam'... for once and for all.

It's going to have to start sometime... and I would rather it start BEFORE we lose a major city or two.

9 posted on 12/24/2006 10:39:26 AM PST by johnny7 ("We took a hell of a beating." -'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
BUMP to what you wrote.

If it ain't gonna be comprehensive, vicious and nasty, why even bother?
10 posted on 12/24/2006 10:42:54 AM PST by upchuck (How to win the WOT? Simple: set our rules of engagement to at least match those of our enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

We need to do something there, the sooner the better, the bigger the better. Call me crazy but I'm for targeted nukes at their nulear sites, major cities and any place their leader may be. We'll sort out the damage later.

He's threatened to wipe away Israel and the U.S. Do we choose to believe him or take our chances? I would like to leave chance out of it since I'm sure he would share technology with any and all of our enemies.

The destruction of Iran would send the wake up call that the radicals need, wait until President Hillary in 2008 and the progress they would make in her administration would really put us behind the eight ball.

We can't risk doing nothing and hoping a Republican wins in 2008. If the democrats win you know they'll do nothing, we're at a critical junction and it may be up to Bush and Bush only to cut the threat off at the knees before it grows too great that we're unable to defend ourselves.


11 posted on 12/24/2006 10:46:09 AM PST by word_warrior_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I get a little concerned if we are wrong. If they have purchased a bomb, or have already made one, we are putting out naval eggs in a pretty small basket. All we need to do is get a few carriers in the gulf and then they lob a nuke on the area and we got some big problems.

I fear we may be getting suckered into a gun fight, but we think its a knife fight.


12 posted on 12/24/2006 10:47:22 AM PST by Vermont Lt (I am not from Vermont. I lived there for four years and that was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

Four Words.

eye
see
be
em


13 posted on 12/24/2006 10:47:54 AM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

Speculation is great, but let's see some action before Iran gets and uses nukes on Israel.


14 posted on 12/24/2006 10:50:32 AM PST by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: word_warrior_bob
Exactly!

We can't continue to handcuff our troops with KGC rules of war (Kinder Gentler Compassionate). All this crap about proportionality is killing our troops faster now than ever.

For the first time Coalition forces have lost 77 or more troops per month for 4 consecutive months. We are in the Nuclear Age and we need to kill them by the train loads with Nukes.

Or we can stand by and hope that Democracy will win over their moslem contaminated minds... and we will still be wishing that when their nukes hit US.
15 posted on 12/24/2006 10:53:57 AM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC

That's what I keep saying, we're going to LET an American City get nuked first to impress everyone who HATES us how restrained we are, great strategy.

Either you believe him or you don't. I believe him. It seems like too many people don't.

That puts us in the uncomfortable position of hoping YOUR city gets nuked instead of mine. I don't like that position.


16 posted on 12/24/2006 11:01:00 AM PST by word_warrior_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
The US now has the capability to hit pin point targets with special non nuclear versions of the Trident missle. Far better than risking US pilots and best of all no warning...just a zot from the heavens.

However, any military action against Iran would result in Bush's immediate impeachment by Queen Nancy and her flying monkey army. We will unfortunately have to live with a nuclear armed Iran with a madman's finger on the trigger and I'm sorry to say a possible nuclear Pearl Harbor before the US will do anything.

17 posted on 12/24/2006 11:11:09 AM PST by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: word_warrior_bob
it may be up to Bush and Bush only to cut the threat off at the knees

This is a constitutionalist website.

Bush has no such authority.

18 posted on 12/24/2006 11:13:19 AM PST by Jim Noble (To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

Naaaaah, lets just wait another 10 years ir so, until they have better defences or have the bomb!


19 posted on 12/24/2006 11:15:16 AM PST by observer5 (It's not a War on Terror - it's a WAR ON STUPIDITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

You're not getting the gist of what I'm saying, perhaps I should have worded it better.


20 posted on 12/24/2006 11:15:32 AM PST by word_warrior_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

"Air strikes don't work, and air power divorced from ground and sea power is a dangerous myth.
If we want to compel Iran, the country will have to be invaded, conquered, and occupied for fifty years."

That nonsense has git us into the Iraq mess. Clintom bombed the Yugos into submission.


21 posted on 12/24/2006 11:19:59 AM PST by observer5 (It's not a War on Terror - it's a WAR ON STUPIDITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Even under the Constitution he would so have the authority -- if he believed an attack by Iran on us or our allies was extremely eminent, and that seeking Congressional approval for a formal war declaration was undoable in the time available. That would be a duty, btw, not a judgement call once the determination was made. JMO.


22 posted on 12/24/2006 11:20:23 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
Rules of Engagement
23 posted on 12/24/2006 11:22:37 AM PST by BIGLOOK (Keelhauling is a sensible solution to mutiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Suppose Bush asked Congress for a Declaration of War against Iran, and it was refused.

Would he still have the authority you claim?

24 posted on 12/24/2006 11:31:00 AM PST by Jim Noble (To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

The President, as the Commander in Chief has the authority to attack any threat (in that case Iran) without congressional approval. He only has to notify them. He can use military force 60 days long. After that Congress either approves to continue the action, by declaring war, or it asks the President to cease the action.

The point would be: can we destroy Irans military and WMD capacities within 2 months? We crushed Saddam in 3 weeks... so what are the odds?


25 posted on 12/24/2006 11:36:51 AM PST by SolidWood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: greasepaint
Bush is weak.
He will not get Nancy's permission.

Not only that, we can't even keep the lid on Iraq. It's sad but true.

26 posted on 12/24/2006 11:41:32 AM PST by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing; All; RaceBannon; Pan_Yans Wife; freedom44; jmc1969; FreeReign; odds; Cronos; decal; ...

One ploy to wake people up at the moment would be to start selling burkas and prayers mats in some highly visible manner... show them at malls, ballgames, or a fashion show.

If nothing works soon, then it won't be just a ploy.




What a terrific PsyOps idea! If done correctly it would get a rise out of the USA population and could not be termed ANTI Islam. The cost of the cloth and sewing would be a drop in the ocean compared to the publicity attained.

Fashion shows on TV for these Burkhas - all the same color(?) and form to emphasise monotony. Certainly in only a dozen plain colors. Then the Burkha swimsuits (they exist).What a great campaign idea.

The overriding and oft repeated qustion is: "is this what you would like to be wearing? Day in and day out Ladies?"


27 posted on 12/24/2006 11:44:29 AM PST by FARS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre; Nancee

I agree with your tagline. How about a map to implement it? :-)

I just posted this on another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1758012/posts?page=5#5

Merry Christmas!


28 posted on 12/24/2006 11:46:13 AM PST by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood
either approves to continue the action, by declaring war, or it asks the President to cease the action

The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are similar in some ways to war, but Congress didn't declare war nor did it ask the Pres to cease after 60 days. There is apparently yet another option.

29 posted on 12/24/2006 11:48:54 AM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FARS
"Then the Burkha swimsuits (they exist).What a great campaign idea. "

That's in-your-face activism. :0

LOL.

30 posted on 12/24/2006 11:51:28 AM PST by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
If we want to compel Iran, the country will have to be invaded, conquered, and occupied for fifty years.

Oh, I don't know about that. I rather favor Emmett Terrell's idea, Bust the joint up

31 posted on 12/24/2006 12:07:47 PM PST by Gritty (Iran has been at war with us for 27 years, even though we’ve yet to deign to fight back-Dean Barnett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
Destroy Iran's political and military power structure.
32 posted on 12/24/2006 12:08:26 PM PST by SIDENET (Everybody was kung-fu fighting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

We don't have the guts to do anything about Iran *or* North Korea.If Iran is to be denied nukes it will be because their government changed course or because Israel took them out.


33 posted on 12/24/2006 12:18:29 PM PST by Gay State Conservative ("The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."-Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
Not removing the Iranian dictatorship now will allow both Iran & Syria to continue exporting their trained killers to Iraq & Afghanistan with orders to murder our troops.

An offensive Iranian nuclear weapons arsenal will quickly become fact - unless prevented.

Haman Jr.

34 posted on 12/24/2006 12:29:42 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

Jr. will get the same fate..


35 posted on 12/24/2006 12:32:00 PM PST by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty

Ditto!


36 posted on 12/24/2006 12:33:28 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FARS
The overriding and oft repeated question is: "is this what you would like to be wearing? Day in and day out Ladies?"
 

The understated question is: Would you rather witness the live beheading of your family?

I'll take the prayer mat.

37 posted on 12/24/2006 12:39:25 PM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
I get a little concerned if we are wrong. If they have purchased a bomb, or have already made one, we are putting out naval eggs in a pretty small basket.

If they have purchased a bomb, or have already made one, the fat is already in the fire.

They're going to use it. It's not going to "go to waste".

On what? is to be determined...

38 posted on 12/24/2006 12:49:34 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
I support attacks on Iran the one thing concerning me is attacks on a functioning Nuclear Reactor.I would hate to see Nuclear fallout spreading all over Eastern Iran,Afghanistan and China from a reactor that we The U.S. were forced to knock out of commission.I just hope our intelligence people have figured a way to do it without killing thousands of innocent People.

On the other hand if we don't take the Reactors out those MAD Mullahs will give a bomb to AQ or some other terrorist organization and they will use it.At our expense.
39 posted on 12/24/2006 12:54:16 PM PST by puppypusher (The world is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing; All

Strange though it may seem, the clothing aspect may hit home harder than beheadings, which may prove to be beyond their concept range - as happening to THEM. Here in the USA.

All the best,


40 posted on 12/24/2006 1:07:59 PM PST by FARS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

The one theory I've been waiting to hear about or read about is how FDR and Ike would have prosecuted WW-II while they were having to buy oil from Adolf Hitler. The US should be exporting oil and not importing it and I'm starting to get the impression that the only possible way to get from here to there is the same way you stop smoking, i.e. just stop. The idea would be to ban all oil imports. That would mess us up as badly as we were messed up during WW-II for about a year and a half and, after that, we'd be better off than we are now, and Ahmadinajad and every other clown in the world like him would be living in tents and riding on camels, and terrorism would be the furthese thing from their minds since they'd not have the financial wherewithal for it.


41 posted on 12/24/2006 1:16:27 PM PST by rickdylan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

The Iranians are correct in their belief that air strikes alone will just slow them down. That they will be able to regenerate their nuclear program.

That being said, what must be done is to partition Iran so that it cannot reconstitute what has been destroyed.

While this is not easy, it is far easier than invading Persia. This is because the outlying regions of Iran are filled with several kinds of non-integrated, powerless, and despised minorities, who have far more in common with adjacent nations then they do with Persians.

The divisions are obvious, and it would be easy for these adjacent nations to absorb their kin, and defend them with their armies, assuming the Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard had been reduced.

Iranian Kurdistan would join with Iraqi Kurdistan to make a greater Kurdistan. Perhaps this would be too much for them to remain a part of Iraq and a de jure Kurdistan would be created as a new nation.

For its part, Arabic Iraq could take Iranian Khuzestan, which likewise has a Shiite/Sunni split, and much of Iran's oil reserves. This would soothe Iraq's Arabs on their loss of Kurdistan.

Iranian Baluchistan would join with Pakistani Baluchistan, its twin, under the authority of Pakistan. It has far too much mineral wealth, and a new deep-water port, for Pakistan to be willing to part with it.

Finally, the Iranian Azeri lands would become part of Azerbaijan. This is the trickiest part, as Azerbaijan is militarily weak, so would require a contingent of Americans there for a while.

So there is the strategy: use air power to destroy their nuclear program; then partition Iran, leaving Persia alone, but taking away their mineral, oil and money resources.

And their military and Revolutionary Guard would be forfeit.


42 posted on 12/24/2006 1:18:25 PM PST by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
As Commander in Chief given an eminent attack known to a very high degree of likelihood from Iran, yes. He could still launch a war even after Congress disapproved.

Do you think that FDR knew about the specific attack on Pearl Harbor days, perhaps weeks, before it happened? That is my guess, that FDR did know. Yet he dared not launch a preventive strike against the Jap fleet -- why? Because had he done that the worst thing that could happen would have been the destruction of that fleet. His critics and opponents would have forced the war to be limited. They would have strenuously argued and been potent -- with heroic figures of the time, men like Lindbergh and Ford, against it.

Today the danger from nuclear missiles, container-cargo nukes, mines and subs that Iran could launch is a many levels greater than a carrier fleet of WW II. A Commander making a decision to hold fire until struck will have hundreds of thousands of first strike casualities for which to answer.

However, once a preemptive counterstrike is launched, and successful that very success could bring about the impeachment and trial for war crimes of that same commander.

A very hard choice.

43 posted on 12/24/2006 1:23:59 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola

The islamic injunction against realistic images has produced an amount of neglect in the image-making profession. But, the Revolutionary Soviet-NaZi style of the poster behind Iammadjohn is entirely appropriate for Iammadjohn's apocalyptic revolution visions.


44 posted on 12/24/2006 1:25:39 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

This month's Pop Mech has an interesting article about a version of the "rods of God" only launched from Trident missiles. The article, while raising questions about the danger of delivering conventional munitions with sea launched ICBMs, left little doubt that the capability of delivering thousands of hyper velocity tungsten rods over a given area exists now. This might be a time to try it out.


45 posted on 12/24/2006 1:28:51 PM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: word_warrior_bob

"If the democrats win you know they'll do nothing,..."

Well we know that a democrat was President for our entry into WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Balkans.

As a further matter of fact Clinton continued Bush I's policy of flyover bombings in Iraq.

So your claim has no backing in history.


46 posted on 12/24/2006 1:32:55 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

I don't know if we will actually attack, but moving a second carrier into the region makes it much more likely, especially when additional carriers are scheduled to deploy to replace the first two carriers. The change-over period is when an attack would take place. Given that vaq-137 and vaq-139 are the EW squadrons with the new ICAP-III EA-6b aircraft, and since these are stationed on the Enterprise and Ronald Reagan, which were in the gulf area this past year, any movement of these two carriers to replace the Stennis and the Eisenhower would be the ideal time to strike.

Alternatively, it would be a good time for _Israel_ to strike. That way plenty of US assets would be in place when the inevitable Iranian counter-strike against US bases in the Mideast took place. The Iranians have stated many times that they would attack the US forces if the Israelis attacked their nuke plants. Thus by international law the US would be in an ideal position to crush the Iranian military.


47 posted on 12/24/2006 1:43:53 PM PST by burster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Jim, airpower DOES WORK. You just have to make sure you have the right weapons package on board.


48 posted on 12/24/2006 1:49:49 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (How do I change my screen name after Harper's election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
The plan has already been developed for this contingency. I'm sure it's been tested and just waits for Bush's implementation order. I recommend a patient stand.

The first strike must be designed to take out the NY Times. Once this propoganda tool is silenced our men and women in the military will be safer.

Finally, ignore the arm chair generals who don't have a clue on strategy and tactics. The Viet Nam war was a mega circle jertk since a jerk tried to manage the field from afar. As a Viet Era Air Force Officer I/we argued at Sqaudron Officer's School for an Air Force oriented attack venue. We bombed the jungle into a lunar waste land and defoliated triple canopy jungle but in two weeks of Christmas bombing when we sent the B52s to Hanoi we accomplised in 14 days what we didn't do in 8 plus years and 50,000 plus dead.

49 posted on 12/24/2006 2:02:43 PM PST by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
B-61 Mod-11 bombs would do the trick.
50 posted on 12/24/2006 2:03:31 PM PST by COEXERJ145 (Bush Derangement Syndrome Has Reached Pandemic Levels on Free Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson