Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 04/25/2005 View Sun 04/24/2005 View Sat 04/23/2005 View Fri 04/22/2005 View Thu 04/21/2005 View Wed 04/20/2005 View Tue 04/19/2005
1
2005-04-25 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Iran plans to knock out U.S. with 1 nuclear bomb
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymous5089 2005-04-25 3:58:37 PM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I call bullshit. My bet is that EMP effects are sufficiently localized that effective use would require multiple detonations at many places over the continental US. One shot probably won't be sufficient. Even with luck the area truly disabled would be rather small in relation to the overall US. Our military has sufficient assets overseas, and out of range, to kick just about anyone's ass, if we are attacked like this. Any ballistic missle fired at the US would invite an overwhelming Nuclear response, possibly before it even lands. If you fire only one or two from a ship, we'll find the source country and make them pay.

What is much more likely than this scenario is an EMP weapon fired using conventional explosives (research has been done on these). Such a bomb could be smuggled into the country or even built here in small quantities. It would be much more deniable than a missle.
Posted by DO 2005-04-25 5:29:18 PM||   2005-04-25 5:29:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Why should it be less likely to get a nuclear response?

What sort of whimp is this guy?

A nuke is a nuke is a nuke.
Even if it is an EMP nuke.
Posted by 3dc 2005-04-25 5:38:01 PM||   2005-04-25 5:38:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 The biggest bomb ever detonated - tested by the Russians - was a 60 megaton bomb, or about 3,000 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb, which is what the Iranians are likely to build. That bomb's EMP blew out electronics for hundreds of miles around. Some puny Hiroshima-sized (20 kiloton) Iranian bomb isn't going to do much to the continental US. Again, Uncle Sam's infrastructure isn't going to be destroyed by something that even a mullah could think up.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2005-04-25 5:51:15 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2005-04-25 5:51:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Heh this is old news using a new angle. Back in the cold war it was determined that a 50 megaton nuke detonated at approximately 250-300 km dead smack center above the US would cripple the entire civilian infrastructure of the US. Slight problem there was the fact that in a nuclear exchange the civilian infrastructure was gonna be vaped anyway for the most part. China sometimes trots this line out currently via articles and essays written by its own military guys to show how vulnerable the US (never mind that I dont believe that China has a 50 megaton nuke either).

Anything under a 100 kilotons is gonna do much more damage via airburst than the EMP effects.
Posted by Valentine 2005-04-25 6:11:52 PM||   2005-04-25 6:11:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 "...the USA would still be able to reach back at Iran... Possibly with a nuke???"

"Possibly"???? More like "definitely", with several dozen of them at least. If Iran does this, there won't be any more Iran. Period.

"Would the World(Tm) accept such a retaliation for a "non lethal" attack?"

Who's going to give a flying fat rat's ass whether they "accept" it??? Not me, I'll tell you; and any US President who gives even a millimicrofuck what ANYBODY else thinks, other than the American people, after such an attack would be impeached, tried, and abruptly removed from office.
Posted by Dave D. 2005-04-25 6:17:31 PM||   2005-04-25 6:17:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Just one SSBN and Iran (and their 5 closest friends) would be vapor.
Posted by .com 2005-04-25 6:21:39 PM||   2005-04-25 6:21:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 This business of Al Qaeda being able to fire a scud missile from a freighter is BS.
Sea launch of a ballistic missle is difficult and would be impossible for a terrorist organization.
Let us suppose they could overcome the technical challenges. How would they test? A ballistic missile is not something one can launch in secret.

photo of a ballistic missile being launched from a ship
Posted by john 2005-04-25 6:32:10 PM||   2005-04-25 6:32:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Ok, an EMP bomb is unlikely, but theorically, would really the USA incinerate hundred of thousands of civilians (assuming a "city-busting" massive response) in response for such an attack? Wouldn't the response rather be, I don't know, tactical nukes on a few military targets (if existing) for the message and a military campaign w/o any of the OIF niceties (cautious rules of engagement, aversion to civilian deaths, that sort of things) for the meat of the riposte?
Frankly, I can't picture the USA outright nuking a country of (mostly) innocent and sometimes pro-american iranians, short of a real nuclear detonation in downtown NYC.
The same thing goes for a dirty bomb. What would be the textbook response?
As for the reactions of the "international community", I agree it does not matter in the end, and rightly so. Just one remark : if I understand correctly, the US army will respond to an unconventionnal attack on the battlefield with an unconventionnal response, which means given the choices available a tactical nuke. Sadly, whatever the cause, any response of that kind will be seen as an us abomination, something that would talked about for decades, not to mention the us left's take on this. The USA don't exist in a vaccum, and your status depend also on perception. Whatever the cause of a potential nuclear response, even a "small" battlefield one, the blame would be on you.
Posted by Anonymous5089 2005-04-25 6:45:09 PM||   2005-04-25 6:45:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm not sure how this would stop our own naval based retaliation. I'm not sure the Iranians will have a missile capable of hitting North America in the next decade.

I'm sure a smuggled EMP is far more likely and would do far less damage. I'm sure the Mullahs won't be around long enough to see this idiocy pan out.
Posted by rjschwarz 2005-04-25 6:45:20 PM|| [http://rjschwarz.com]  2005-04-25 6:45:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "Briefly, a single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field to produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth," said the report. "EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that ’shocked’ – upset,

I call World Net Daily!

LOL what a bunch of malitia.
Posted by Shipman 2005-04-25 6:47:31 PM||   2005-04-25 6:47:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Don't forget Cholera and Tyfus and unseemlyness.
Posted by Shipman 2005-04-25 6:48:40 PM||   2005-04-25 6:48:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I assume that's a rhetorical question 5089. The technical answer is yes, in a New York nano second.
Posted by Shipman 2005-04-25 6:50:26 PM||   2005-04-25 6:50:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Ok, all you bomb experts: get ready to jump all over this.

Do we really need to respond to the kind of nuclear attack Iran could launch with nukes of our own? How about some (ok, a lot!) carefully targetted MOABs and missiles, etc to totally remove all their aggressive and defensive capacity, and those who give and receive the orders? Say, all barracks, military depots and bases, the Parliament building, the homes of the Mullahs, all suspected storage, launch and research facilities for all weapons programs, offices of all terrorist groups, etc. I imagine it would look/sound much like the bombing runs CNN televised during Gulf War I, and would leave the few remaining Mullahs very few toys to play with. Not to mention a gentle reminder of the havoc the U.S. can produce just using her conventional weapons... and good practice for the Swabbies responsible for loading up the missiles, and the programmers who set the GPS coordinates. And then we can refuse to negotiate anything less than total surrender and throwing open all their facilities to American -- NOT IAEA -- inspectors.
Posted by  trailing wife 2005-04-25 6:53:30 PM||   2005-04-25 6:53:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The primary goal of the anti-WMD efforts is to prevent them, especially nukes, from being used by ANYBODY, because once they are used, all the rules of war will change forever. The 1945 use was experimental, long ago, and as the culmination of a great war, so it can be set aside as an isolated event. The next use will not - it will set precedent, and subsequent uses will follow quickly.

If Iran nukes the US, even with an EMP weapon, the precedent will be set, and India, Pakistan, former Soviet states etc. will follow as they see fit.

Assuming an Iranian nuke leads ONLY to economic damage, & not massive civilian casualties, I would not expect a nuclear retaliation by the US. But I sure wouldn't want to be trying to get a good night's sleep anywhere in Iran. I WOULD expect MASSIVE and sustained conventional retaliation, without any advance warning or negotiation. And 'conventional' retaliation by the US will be more devastating than even maximum nuclear war by almost anyone else.
Posted by Glenmore  2005-04-25 7:00:19 PM||   2005-04-25 7:00:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 TW, yes, but EMP for EMP first.
Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-25 7:03:51 PM||   2005-04-25 7:03:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 On the other hand how do you expect someone like 'President' John Kerry or Hillary Clinton to respond to an attack like this?

I say it would be more along the line of a stern word and reliance on the United Nations for a 'peaceful settlement' and all sorts of efforts to 'understand' them....
Posted by CrazyFool 2005-04-25 7:03:54 PM||   2005-04-25 7:03:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Anon: Ok, an EMP bomb is unlikely, but theorically, would really the USA incinerate hundred of thousands of civilians (assuming a "city-busting" massive response) in response for such an attack?

TW: Do we really need to respond to the kind of nuclear attack Iran could launch with nukes of our own?

Okay, let's build that scenario. The Mad Mullahs decide that the time is right to detonate a nuke (let's make it 2 or 3 Hiroshima size nukes) to generate an EMP over the U.S. Let's say the effected area isn't the whole US, as the Mullahs hope, but a little more than the localized effect postulated by Zheng. It's nasty, and we have a fair bit of our country nailed by an EMP.

And let's say, thanks to our world-wide intel and military assets, that we figure out real quick that it was the Mullahs, to > 95% probability. And let's say that while our civilian electronic nets are fairly hosed as above, the military comm and war-fighting equipment is 95% ready to go.

So Anon and TW, here's what President White would do: he'd make a broadcast to the Iranian people, getting that broadcast in however he could (satellite, etc), lay out the evidence, etc., etc., and give the Iranian people a choice: seize and execute the Mad Mullahs right friggin' now, or we the U.S. will be forced to believe that they're in agreement with the Mullahs. And that menas the obliteration of Iran.

I'd give them a couple of days to (perhaps) a couple of weeks -- that won't hurt our response any, it will allow us to assess further just what happened and how badly we're hurt and what we have to do. It would give me (President White, remember) time make sure that our most key allies, the Brits, Aussies, and ... ah, hell, just those two, are with us. And it would allow me to make sure that no one else (e.g., the Chinese) put the Mullahs up to this.

Now this would be eyeball-to-eyeball, real serious shit, but it's my belief that in this scenario, the Iranian people would string up the mullahs. And then we'd go in, occupy the place for a while and clean out the rats.

And I'd much rather do that than incinerate 20 million people.

Glenmore says that we'd respond conventionally. Yes, that's an option, but not a good one. Much of the rest of the world, including the nuclear powers, would see this as American whimping out. We can't EVER allow that perception to take hold after a nuclear attack. While our conventional retaliation would indeed be overwhelming, it would give the LLL and the world loonies time to oppose whatever we did. Nuts to that.

That's just me, of course, and while I'd like to think that I'm the salt of reason, if someone, anyone, uses a nuke against us, even as "just" an EMP, it's massive nuclear retaliation time, UNLESS the people rise up in that other country.
Posted by Steve White  2005-04-25 7:24:10 PM||   2005-04-25 7:24:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Do we really need to respond to the kind of nuclear attack Iran could launch with nukes of our own?

Yes, in primal ratio 11/1
Posted by Shipman 2005-04-25 7:26:05 PM||   2005-04-25 7:26:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 And then build 110 more warheads so the point is be got.
Posted by Shipman 2005-04-25 7:26:50 PM||   2005-04-25 7:26:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I think Dr. White nails it pretty well: we simply cannot not respond massively to a nuclear attack-- EMP or otherwise-- because doing so will embolden a host of ambitious enemies.

His proposal amounts to issuing a non-negotiable demand for immediate, complete, and unconditional surrender-- with mullahs swinging from lamp posts to demonstrate sincerity-- or face annihilation.

I approve.
Posted by Dave D. 2005-04-25 7:39:31 PM||   2005-04-25 7:39:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Do we really need to respond to the kind of nuclear attack Iran could launch with nukes of our own?

Not only would we do so, we would have no choice but to do so. Glenmore is precisely correct: the next use of nuclear weapons is a threshold that must never again be crossed. But if that rubicon is crossed the only possible response is overwhelming and in kind. Failure to respond in kind and overwhelmingly would open the door to a decades-long geopolitical nightmare with the worst of humanity seeing the unleashing of WMDs as the surest road to the achievement of their goals (we've witnessed this mentality forming for decades now, it only remains for it to come to full fruition). IMHO it's doubtful that any conventional response could be sufficiently overwhelming as to head off such a scenario and in any event failure to respond in kind and overwhelmingly when we’re clearly capable of doing so will be taken as a sign of certain weakness … just the sort of interpretation that brought us 9/11.

On another note: I disagree about the relative difficulty of sea-launched SCUDs. Any idiot could load a mobile SCUD launcher onto a cargo ship and get a shot off as the ship neared shore with a relatively high probability of the SCUD landing on land if the seas were calm and the weather clear. They might need to re-engineer the guidance systems to use GPS or another self-correcting mechanism but that’s undergraduate engineering lab stuff, not at all difficult. This reminds me vaguely of the difference between American and Russian space launch capabilities. At Vandenberg there’s a weather balloon ever 10k feet to IIRC 100k and if the wind is even slightly out of kilter or if the weather isn’t nearly perfect, the launch is scrubbed. Some friends of mine were at Baiknour when the Russians launched some satellites for a former employer and they described a Proton being launched, “In a driving rain, minimum 50 MPH winds at ground level and with a violent electrical storm overhead.” The launch went fine. We Americans tend to overestimate the difficulty of some engineering problems and in turn our own lead/abilities in certain fields. Often the low-tech solution merely increases the risk of failure by a moderate (often minimal) amount. We ignore such low-tech moderate failure approaches at our peril.
Posted by AzCat 2005-04-25 7:54:03 PM||   2005-04-25 7:54:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 President White's behaviour would invite further attacks from other villains hoping to hide their tracks. Each such attack would cost the US economy several trillion dollars. The only reasonable response to a nuke attack on the US is immediate, automatic retaliation and the complete destruction of the evil's homeland.

Not just bombing them back to the Stone Age, but frying their land and threatening with similar treatment any country that protests. If Iran attacks the US, the immediate objectives must be the annihilation of Iran, and the toppling of tyrants in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Once the nuke genie is out of the bottle, there is no negotiation or process possible.

If the mullahs and islamofascists were to understand that, they'd never attack the US with nukes or other non-conventional weapons. But if they could hope for a President White (or Kerry or Clinton) they'd always be trying to attack.
Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-04-25 8:01:43 PM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/]  2005-04-25 8:01:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 If I were a nuclear-tipped, nutjob mullah, I would be thinking about EMPing The Zionist Entity(tm). Sure, nuking the US might give me wet dreams, but the response would not leave much time for gloating. Whack Israel completely enough to prevent response and maybe you could get away with only a UN sanction or two.
Posted by SteveS 2005-04-25 8:17:59 PM||   2005-04-25 8:17:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 The whole notion of delivering huge weapons with the likes of freighter-mounted scud missles is silly -- like launching a grenade with a BB gun. Iran has neither the large weapons for major EMP damage nor the boat and missile technology to deliver them. At least not now.

Iran's mid-flight detonations probably reflect the fact that they do not have sufficient re-entry expertise to protect their warheads. It is not a trivial task to prevent warhead inoperability from partial burn-up during re-entry. Every kilogram devoted to burn-up protection is one less kilogram for warhead.

As for an EMP weapon, the electromagnetic field strength diminishes very rapidly with distance in a vacuum, and even faster in the atmosphere where there is absorption. One warhead is not going to cripple the U.S. Maybe the NYC region or the Washington, D.C. region, but not the U.S. The weapons aren't big enough and the "national" electrical grid is not the row of dominoes this author thinks it is.

When I was a kid, and I'm talking 40 years ago, there was an article in the Reader's Digest about the possibility of the Red Chinese sneaking a nuke into a U.S. port, detonating it, and thus provoking a fight-to-the-death between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. You want to worry about something? Worry about that. The Chinese could do us serious harm and let Iran and North Korea take the blame.
Posted by Tom 2005-04-25 8:27:54 PM||   2005-04-25 8:27:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 It is a common misconception that less developed societies are less vulnerable to attacks on their infrastructure than developed societies. Government control has far fewer points of vulnerability and these could be taken out with precision guided munitions in a few days to a few weeks.

My scenario is the Serbian bombing campaign with any limits removed. The condition for stopping is the handover of all responsible persons starting at the top and including anyone connected to the operation. Trial, execution and imprisonment of those responsible will be as effective as nuclear retaliation without the 'fallout'.
Posted by phil_b 2005-04-25 8:34:42 PM||   2005-04-25 8:34:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Wouldn't be nearly as damaging as a gang of terrorists with a map of digital fiber lines and a fleet of rented backhoes.
Posted by DMFD 2005-04-25 8:41:44 PM||   2005-04-25 8:41:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 A single device of the kind Iran can probably develop is highly unlikely to do significant EMP damage to the United States and it would not affect our nuclear capability at all. US nuclear forces are hardened against the kind of EMP that would have resulted from an all-out Soviet attack during the Cold War, thousands of big warheads.

We have some very good empirical data on EMP effects from Operation Starfish Prime, a nuclear test in near-Earth space (250 miles) over the Johnston Island range in 1962.

This was almost the optimum altitude for EMP effects and the test did indeed cause some electrical disruption 800 miles away in Hawaii; blown fuses, tripped breakers, brief interruption of broadcasting, that kind of thing. It was noticeable but certainly not catastrophic.
The most relevant fact is that Starfish Prime was a thermonuclear device ("H-bomb") with a yield of 1.4 megatons, almost certainly dozens of times more powerful than anything the Iranians could devise early in their program. Yet it did not cause anything like catastrophic damage even over an area less than half as large as the contiguous United States.
Major damage over a radius of 1200 miles, the size of the US, would require a much, much more powerful device than Starfish Prime (ca 50 megatons), or a large number (100+) of smaller devices.
Continent wide EMP damage is within the realm of possibility but the mullahs can't do it.

The risk is greater to Israel, but a single device would probably not do it.
As with any radiant energy effect, the intensity of the effect is roughly proportional to the energy (yield) and to the square root of the distance. This means that the same effect is achieved over a radius that is proportional to the square root of the yield.
A 20 kiloton device, about what the mullahs are likely to have, would produce the same effect as Starfish Prime over a radius of 92 miles (1400/20=70, 2rt^70=8.366, 800/8.366=92). This is about what would be needed to blanket Israel, but even then the effect would be far from catastrophic without a considerably larger device.

Israeli nuclear forces would also be hardened against EMP as a matter of course, and the same is probably true of many of their conventional forces and civil emergency assets.

As for retaliation, the US can detonate as many medium yield (ca 300 kilotons) warheads above Iran as it would take to fry every telephone line, cellphone, radio station, computer, generator, machine tool, powerline, and vehicle ignition in the country. We could literally send them back to the Stone Age. Israel probably has the same potential but it would take a much larger proportion of their nuclear stockpile to do it.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-04-25 8:44:17 PM||   2005-04-25 8:44:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 And how, phil_b, would you be assured that all the the guilty are apprehended in time to prevent their escape or further attack? Have you learned nothing from Iraq?
Posted by Tom 2005-04-25 8:48:08 PM||   2005-04-25 8:48:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Just after 9-11, I suggested using EMP bursts above Kabul and a couple of other places to knock out the flimsy Taliban communication system and to keep bin Laden from using his cellphones and the internet to coordinate his terrorist network. This could have been done as soon as our operatives were in place with hardened equipment to maintain communications for the Northern Alliance.

I was immediately attacked on all fronts, mainly on the grounds of the deafening world-wide outcry that would have resulted. To me, this would have been at least as great an advantage as the destruction of the enemy's C3. Nobody would have been killed (at least not directly), but the America-hating elements of the global media cult would have been shocked and demoralized at the failure of their decades-long propaganda campaign against American nuclear weapons.
Even more importantly, they and their Islamofascist allies would have understood in no uncertain terms that we were serious.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-04-25 8:58:12 PM||   2005-04-25 8:58:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 " can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight."

EMP effects from high altitude nuclear explosions aside, this sounds more like a command detonation/self destruct function. There are several conventional guidance systems with the required accuracy for a predetermined high altitude detonation over a continent.

No. The Iranians are worried about an errant missile nuking the wrong target. (probably Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv or something)
Posted by Dave 2005-04-25 9:01:11 PM||   2005-04-25 9:01:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 The Biblical verse contained in the book of preemption reads, "Do to the Mullahs before they get the drop on you(all)."
Posted by Dennis Kucinich 2005-04-25 9:47:25 PM||   2005-04-25 9:47:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Unfortunately, we would have no choice but to kill millions. If we wait for anything, even a demand for unconditional surrender, that opens the door of uncertainty. Maybe in the end, the MMs would be in a war crimes trial and hung. Fine. But others would think "if we had gotten the Chinese to back us up right away, and bribed enough people in the media, maybe..."

It has to be automatic. They need to know that any WMD attack on the US, of any kind, will result in an unlimited countervalue attack.

Will the people support it? They supported Hamburg, even though Germany fought a "honorable" war against the US (I'm not talking about eastern Europe, just the US). Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base (albeit a sneak attack in peacetime) and we had no problem burning down Japanese cities one by one until they surrendered. A sneak attack on civilians is a superb way to get Jacksonian America out for your blood. While there are arguments about strategy (Iraq vs. more on Afghanistan, Syria vs. Iran vs. Saudi), no person who isn't on the other side says we should call off the war against jihad.
Posted by Jackal  2005-04-25 10:36:37 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2005-04-25 10:36:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 A different kind of counter-value attack is needed, one that would take the ummah out of the modern world in the literal sense. We could launch our own EMP attack, against every urban center in the Muslim world as well as against select collaborationist targets outside the ummah. Again, this would literally send them back to the Stone Age. A complete quarantine of the affected areas, to continue for a period of not less than 100 years, would keep them there.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-04-25 11:07:02 PM||   2005-04-25 11:07:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Wretchard's "Three Conjectures" would immediately come into play. Unfortunately, Iran would only be the beginning. http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html
Posted by SR-71 2005-04-25 11:20:38 PM||   2005-04-25 11:20:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 First of all, the problems of the 60's is not the problem of today. Equipment is far more versatile than it was 40 years ago. Remember, most things operated using vacuum tubes back then! While transistors and computer chips are vulnerable, even minimal shielding and good grounding will prevent most EMP damage. What do you think a lightning strike is? Also, an EMP strike would do NOTHING to fiber-optic cables and connectors. The entire electronics world has changed, and EMP awareness has been a major consideration in equipment design and manufacture since at least the early 1970's. Whether or not civilian equipment is robust enough to withstand a reasonable EMP pulse is not something I'm familiar with - if anyone else is, please add your two cents' worth here.

Retaliation must be swift and at the same time, "reasonable". We should hit the Iranian nuclear processing sites, their reactors, and any armament manufacturing sites, with a 'reasonable facsimile' of the attack on the US - increased by some force multiplier that will say "we see your attack and raise you xxx." We are not dealing with rational, sane people here. We are dealing with religious fanatics who believe their death in battle will result in cosmic reward. We have to make sure the punishment for such an attack is sufficiently painful the rest of the nation (and any neighbors anywhere in the world) will think twice, three times, ten times before even considering mounting an additional attack.
Posted by Old Patriot  2005-04-25 11:27:10 PM|| [http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2005-04-25 11:27:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 What OP said: essential that the response be immediate and proportionate, though of course also displaying our technical and military superiority so as to underscore the utter futility of continuing the escalation. The goal would not be to destroy Iran but to eliminate any likelihood of another Iranian strike.
Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-25 11:50:51 PM||   2005-04-25 11:50:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 The pain administered should be maximal for the regime's leaders and minimal for the regime's subjects. In other words, target the mullahs themselves and their families, relations, their personal assets, all the rudiments of their power. Humiliate the regime, not the Iranian nation. Remember, Iranian nationalism has deep popular roots and this extremely young nation will rally behind any regime that can get a nuclear capability. The ultimate goal is to divide the Iranian people from the mullahs, even if the proximate goal is to show the futility of any regime's targeting the US.
Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-25 11:55:40 PM||   2005-04-25 11:55:40 PM|| Front Page Top

23:55 thibaud (aka lex)
23:50 thibaud (aka lex)
23:36 Frank G
23:27 Old Patriot
23:25 gromgoru
23:20 SR-71
23:17 ed
23:16 Frank G
23:15 badanov
23:07 Atomic Conspiracy
22:59 Old Patriot
22:58 Phil Fraering
22:39 SC88
22:36 Jackal
22:22 Jackal
22:20 Jackal
22:19 Jackal
22:11 Jackal
21:57 Jackal
21:48 jules 2
21:47 Dennis Kucinich
21:39 Super Hose
21:15 Matt
21:10 JKerry









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com