|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Continued Aggression By Iran Sparks New Look At Options By U.S. Military|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Just letting Squiz now that there are other "things" than a "straight up nuke weapon". If given the right provocation, say when and if the Iranians developed a "nuke" and were just crazy enough to use it, we just might see one used. I also wouldn't be surprised if Israel doesn't have a couple around, just in case... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 ADDED NOTE: Who says that we or Israel would use just one?... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Could you envision any scenario where we would use thousands of them, since that is what it would take? Aside from which, they aren't as tidy as is generally assumed. Although 80% of the energy released is in the form of fast neutrons, that still leaves 20% for heat and blast effects ... which in fusion reactions is considerable.  |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Wouldn't take thousands, depending on yield and matter of detonation used. If used on governmental centers and troop concentrations and command and control centers, which was the intended purpose. Take the head off the snake and it dies. The Iranian people will have to rebuild from scratch and wouldn't want a repeat of what happened. Remember that they are Persians, not Arabs and look at things a bit different, at least the people, as opposed to the religious zealots running the government at the moment and if they, the people, realize that if they pull the lions tale, Israel in particular, the other end has teeth, the civilian populace just may depose the mullahs and Ahmedinajhad for us... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Not if you are talking about taking out "all living males" in a mountainous country larger than Alaska, you aren't. The one thing certain about any such attack is that the outcome would not be favorable to us, and nothing, repeat nothing, would cement the authority of the mullahs like any attack, not to mention an attack on that scale. Our getting attacked made Mr. Bush popular, at least briefly. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
The Iranians are a highly educated people and more "urbanized" than most in the region and many have relatives here and have visited or were educated here. The civilian populace may just solve the problem for us and the use of "neutron" or any weapons of mass destruction, is but speculation and speculation only, now Israel on the other hand... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
REALLY?.. This is the effect of PC war on the human Psyche.. remember GWI? we could have wasted the entire Iraqi population had we wished.. remember, our decision to minimize enemy combatant casualties was a choice, not a practical necessity.. once overwhelming force is achieved, the only limit to our ability to kill is our stomach for killing... indeed once the rate of death exceeds the rate of reproduction extinction would be inevitable.. if the romans could pull it off with nothing more technically advanced than a Gladius, I think we could manage.... |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Of course, after we did this, all those azzholes who compare the US to Nazi Germany would require an apology... Not a nation in the world would ever do buisness with us again. You can kiss every alliance, every bit of cooperation goodby. Personally I think Mr. Bush is a loose canon, who after starting a conventional war which would be a disaster, is perfectly capable of using nukes in "self defense." This buinsess of Neutron bombs is science fiction. Not that we don't have them, but millions of innocent people will get immolated. What then? "They had it coming?" The entire scenario makes me sick. Dave |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
And just how proud will you be? Actually of course short of nukes, strategic bombing is waaaaay over-rated. It's never in the history of air power done what it claims to be able to do. Never. All the improvements since 1945 have simply amount to more of the same. Tactically it's been great, and an Iranian invasion of Iraq, assuming decent weather, could be taken apart. Won't stop them if they leave behind their heavy weapons. Moreover such a war would result in a Shia uprising behind our lines. Good luck with that as well. I brought up the nuke scenario for a reason. I suspect the administration, IF it does want a conflict wants a nice clean conflict where the Iranians "learn a lesson." If they regard such an attack as total war (and I think they would - wouldn't you?) then we will indeed be behind the eight ball, with very few viable choices. Dave |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
I am not advocating their use. It was speculation on what would be a reply to an Iranian attack on us. I also speculated, as to what would trigger that use. The only trigger that I could see the use of any weapon of mass destruction, is if the Iranians did achieve a nuclear weapon and were just crazy enough to use it, either on Israel or the U.S.... The Iranians are working on a long range missile, with nuclear capability, which is the Tae Po Dong II[sp?] sold to them by the North Koreans. They are also working on a hydrodynamic torpedo, which, if fitted with a nuclear weapon could be use as a "carrier killer" and the U.S., is not the only carrier navy... If the Iranians launch at Israel or the Israelis think that that is the Iranians intent, they, the Israelis, just may preimptive[sp?] strike Iran, either by aircraft or submarine and the speculation is that the Israelis have neutron weapons in their nuclear arsenal... Again, this was based on speculation, I was not advocating the use of any weapon of mass destruction... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I can see using nukes as a retaliation for using nukes. Tough... But let's examine THIS scenario. The US announces that they have proof of a systamatic supply of weapons to Iraqi Shia's (that's starting to happen). Mr. Bush gets up on the airwaves and tells the American People that this is costing us lives, and preventing the spread of freedom an Democracy in Iraq. After another month he launches air strikes to teach them a lesson. They respond as if this is all out war, and cross the border to Iraq with half a million men. Meanwhile Shia's in Iraq cut our resupply lines. Air force takes out most of the Iranian regular Army, but they succed in inflitrating two hundred thousand men, while our forces, scattered all over the country, are running out of ammo. What does Mr. Bush do, against what he will call a classic case of aggression? Which does indeed threaten the existance of all our men and woman in Iraq? Does he launch nukes? In the above, I think he would. Why not? Can you imagine him allowing our army to surrender? Mr. Bush? Dave |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Have you totally taken leave of your senses, man? If you can de-people the terrain with pilums, you can sure as hell do it with B-52s... no doubt.. remember, 100,000 dead in Tokyo in just under 6 hours.. 35,000 in Dresden in one night.. let alone destroying infrastructure necessary for growing/distributing food, water, medicine.. hell of a place to walk out of too..particularly the south.. Alexander could tell ya about that..I think the only 8-ball ahmadamnednutjob is going to be getting the better of is the one he has chopped out on a mirror.... |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Actually, since there is no more "atomic artillery" in the U.S. arsenal, I think that there will be no use of tactical nuclear weapons. Would he use any other kind of wmd, probably not, since we have been rapidly destroying or supplies of binary artillery rounds. Now, would we send everything capable of flight and carrying anything that can be dropped, including the kitchen sink, twenty-four seven, you betcha. Would we hit anything Iranian military, anywhere we find them, you betcha, would the U.S.N. have fast attack boats on every existing Iranian submarine, you betcha! Would President Bush expand the war the way you suggest, nope! Because even President Bush would realize that the Iranians have a large standing army. Now would we engage in covert activities, would we mine the straights of Hormuz, you betcha! Would we pizz off the PRC and would the Russian Federation posture, you betcha. Now would they act militarily, nope. Because the PRC depends too much on us for trade and if they attacked us, their internal expansion and industrialization would come to a screaming halt. If the PRC did attack us, we'd simply take out that gigantic damn they are building and not only deprive the majority of China of electrical power, we'd flood a major portion of their industrial and farming capacity... Russia wouldn't attack us, because they know that an attack against a NATO ally, is an attack against all. So, the scenario that you paint, won't happen, unless you buy into some of the wilder conspiracy theories... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Dawgz, modern weapons make the old fleet of bombers overhead obsolete. Unless, we neutralize anything and everything that the Iranians have in the way of anti aircraft capability. Then we don't have the fleets of B-52's we once had, they all went to Davis Montham and AMARC has been real busy with the guillotine. The B-2, ain't that many of them, too expensive and one heck of a waste of asset's, if we were to try and use them in a bomber fleet type of operations. They, the B-2, work best, low and evading. Now, would we use cruise missiles and tactical air, you betcha, to the max and kill anything Iranian military, anywhere we could find it... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
Member |
Every time I go trough the “in the News” thread and read “Continued Aggression By Iran ..”; I just cant help myself but to chuckle……its so ridiculous.
 "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
What is?... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
