Article

2007-09-02 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

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 KBK 2007-09-02 15:39|| || Front Page|| [10 views ] Top

#1 would strike up to 400 sites, only a few dozen of which are linked to the nuclear programme.

The rest are part of Iran's Strategic Fluffy Bunny Command (FLUBUCOM).

Posted by eLarson 2007-09-02 19:15|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2007-09-02 19:15|| Front Page Top

#2 I'll repeat what I've said here before. While I am no big fan of Bushshould he bomb Iran and face a subsequent attempt at impeachment for doing soI will publicly demonstrate against any such unwarranted action.

Bush could do much to polish his currently tarnished legacy by pre-empting Iran's nascent nuclear capability. If he can summon the courage to proceed with this vital campaign I will be most happy to praise his efforts loudly and publicly.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-09-02 19:31|| 2007-09-02 19:31|| Front Page Top

#3 There is no need to use nukes on Iran. All that is required is to take out the refineries, POL storage and distribution systems, electrical generation and distribution systems and Iran stops cold. Without diesel, gasoline, and electricity, nothing moves and production stops. Taking out the military would be nice, but not really necessary.

Posted by RWV 2007-09-02 19:40|| 2007-09-02 19:40|| Front Page Top

#4 would strike up to 400 sites

I prefer the reports that talk about the US obliterating 10,000 sites - those reports including references to the targeting teams putting bombs on target for everything of significance that they could identify within Iran - and simply running out of additional things to target (before we ran out of munitions).

I have some reservations about "bombing Iran back to the pre-stone age" - but I will somehow manage to get over them. Maybe after a beer or two.

I think of historical anecdotes - such as the ones about how the world learned to never molest one of Ghenghis Kahn's horse messsengers; or the story of Lidice, Czecholslovakia - and I think it might be useful for the Islamic world to have a new reference standard - for, say, the next 2,000 years - about the price you pay for threatening a fully capable modern secular democracy.

The Persians have threatened the exterior world before - and they will probbaly threaten it again in the future - but let's make it the DISTANT future - at some date in the 4000's.

Posted by Lone Ranger 2007-09-02 19:47|| 2007-09-02 19:47|| Front Page Top

#5 Precisely, RWV. That's all it would take. No refined petroleum products and the country implodes on the black hats.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2007-09-02 19:58|| http://theworldsworstblog-really.blogspot.com/]">[http://theworldsworstblog-really.blogspot.com/] 2007-09-02 19:58|| Front Page Top

#6 can't fight if you can't move (I assume all fixed missile sites and marked mobile sites would be obliterated (love that word) in the first barrage). Food and electricity shut off, it'd be hard to get the country going. My bestest wish is that the fixed assets owned by the MM's are destroyed first. Let Mutual of Qom pay them off....

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-09-02 20:12|| 2007-09-02 20:12|| Front Page Top

#7 I prefer the other report that said we plan to annihilate their military and IRGC. A B-52 can carry 32 SDBs, which means a typical chalk of three bombers can take out 96 hardened targets simultaneously, from high altitude and at a standoff distance. They can carry 51 250lb JDAMs, for 153 simultaneous targets on the ground.

That is most, if not all, of the tanks, tracks and tubes of an armored division, in a single mission. And all within a few seconds of each other.

Ironically, once we got air superiority, one of our most important weapons delivery aircraft would be the C-130.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-09-02 20:43|| 2007-09-02 20:43|| Front Page Top

#8 Lets hope for the best, while maintaining a suitably pessimistic outlook.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-09-02 20:53|| 2007-09-02 20:53|| Front Page Top

#9 Ironically, once we got air superiority, one of our most important weapons delivery aircraft would be the C-130.

Wow! Interesting idea. I had no idea that a C-130 could be outfitted to drop bombs. :-)

Posted by gorb 2007-09-02 21:05|| 2007-09-02 21:05|| Front Page Top

#10 pushing MOABs on pallets out the back? Not news

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-09-02 21:08|| 2007-09-02 21:08|| Front Page Top

#11 :-) as well....

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-09-02 21:08|| 2007-09-02 21:08|| Front Page Top

23:53 Zenster
23:45 Frank G
23:30 twobyfour
23:27 KBK
23:19 Frank G
23:19 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 gromgoru
23:13 twobyfour
23:11 twobyfour
23:10 KBK
23:08 Frank G
22:58 KBK
22:56 twobyfour
22:50 Old Patriot
22:39 James
22:32 twobyfour
22:20 Ptah
22:19 WTF
22:15 Frank G
22:15 WTF
22:10 KBK
22:02 Frank G
21:59 KBK
21:46 Frank G