??? Whaaaat? Do I need to run that through a decoder?

TLAMs are not sufficient for the destruction of certain key installations, Neal. Bunker buster bombs , even oversozed ones, even if hardened and dropped from a very high altitude, only penetrate so much into the earth, and not more (we had a thread some months ago describing and referring to the physics of it, it was said that a penetration depth of 7-8, or 12 m is the physically possible maximum before any object with that ammount of kinetic energy gets stuck, I do not remember which one of these two was the right value, I think it was 8 m.) that penetration depth does not help much if the installation is hidden behind massive stone formations, let's say 30m or more, is installed inside mountains, and build by steel-hardened concrete structures, and shock-absorbing cellur design. There is no guarantee that they also do not have included further precautions to absorb the shock or reduce the damage from sub-terranean mega-explosions. No, daisy-cutters and bigger bombs will not do the job on some of the key elements of their nuclear industry.

then there is the problem that we know the places in general - but not the exact positions of key structures. We have no GPS coordinates to program. In some places you lacik the ability to aim your conventional megabombs precisely on the right spot, not to mention a weak spot. you could only target the general area, wasting most of the explosion's blast energy for nothing as long as you do not score a lucky hit. even Your mentioned TLAM's need to be programmed by exact coordinates in order to hit the ntended taregt. If you do not know these numbers, your taregt effectively is invisible. The intel deficit on the exact locations has been described in various articles and form ann y sources, Amerian as well as international ones, in the last two years. It is a huge problem, and it is fact.

It is not suffient to destroy only what is in reach, and delay their program. Do you want to come back to them every four years? A sure way to brake with almost all remaining world'S sympathy when striking first in an effective war of attack - and then do it again four years later. And then do it again. It will turn your country into political rubble.

Shuttling around Marines and capture the installations by hand? Come on, think of it. That could work only with those near the coast and the borders, and I expect such things to take place. but Iran is bigger than Iraq, and bigger then Afghanistan. You enter a country where the population is not neutral at the beginning, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanaistan in the beginning. I know the iranian mentlaity and temperament for long enough now, even those who are of a moderate opinion towards the West will turn into enflamed nationalists if you turn against their country. they love it, in all age groups, both sexes, no matter the political or religious spectrum. You will have all of them against you. You would need to fight with extremely vulnerable units while they are on the move, in terrain extremely in favour of guerilla ambushes or even a conventional defender. you would need to enter some of the most rugged mountain terrain in Iran there is. There is modern shoulder-launched SAM's, and ATGMs, not just RPGs. Opposite to Irak, I know many of the terrain types in Iran by my own eyes. Helicopter transportation on huge scale? Your losses will rocket into the sky. The Sovjets lost twice as many helicopters in Afghanistan than tanks. Different than the mujaheddin at the bginning, Iran has Stinger-like weaponry - from the beginning.

Alternative: ground invasion, and fighting your way into the centre of Iran, so to speak. Again, the terrain is your enemy, and many regions you need to enter do not do any favours to tanks and heavy equipement. You would have no safe resting and supply places inside the country. An abrams travels 300 miles before needing to drink. It consumes the samed ammount of gas when sitting still, due to it's turnbine. you would depend on ridiculousoly thin and vulnerable supply lines. Logistics would be a nightmare, and maybe would cause you more losses than combat at the front. You would need to fight all the time, for every mile, against militias, an army with quite some modern weapons in reserve, a population that will welcome you nowhere, but would like to see your throats being slit when you rest. Many of the various enemeis you face would be extremely fanatised. The Revolutionary Guards is the orgnization by whose design Hezbollah has been created in recent years: it effectively brought the israels to a halt, who maybe did not prepare well and planned idiotically, nevertheless run the show with impressive firepower. I mean, all the place of Iran is more hostile than Iraq or Afghanistan, from the very beginning. If you do a ground invasion there, you would need more troops then in Iraq and Afghanistan, and your losses would be of a totally different quality then during the last five years.

Some weeks ago there was an Amnerican article referring to status of army equipment due to Iraq. they said the army will already need years to repair all what has broken down or is degraded due to wear and tear, and thta units already feel the negative, downgrading effect of this.

Then, national public opinion. your nation's population already is polarised over Bush, and Iraq. Now that you would start this Iran story, and imagine what this would mean to the widening gaps between the two "tribes" you already have? The damage to your national psyche wouldn'T heal in the next twenty years to come.

Is the American people really prepared for that? Is it really willing these costs? I doubt that.

Everything speaks against your conventional military scenario, and nothing for it. It reminds me of Napoleon's advance on Moscow.

It is possible though, that for innerpolitical reasons such an attack is launched - with the unamditted knowledge from the very beginning that the objectives cannot all be acchieved, but giving the impression of toughness, and "doing something". what in general is the reasons why there are still US troops in Iraq now: not giving the impression of having been strategically defeated in public, and that it was a mistake.

I stick to it: when somebody will get serious about really destroying Iran'S prgrom, not just delaying it for 3-5 years, then the use of small nukes on selected targets is unavoidable. I see a clear willingness to eventually use nukes in parts of this administration's audience, and the administration itself. And judging the conventional versus the limited nuclear option, I see myself cautiously shifting towards the latter. It would mean far lesser losses for the troops, but higher losses for the popultion over the long run, because even subterranean detonations will create immense radiation and toxic dust as long as the explosive device is not driven many hundred meters into the earth.

Follwing my argument that morals needs to be decided before, but not during a war, it comes down to this question alone: should war be waged to deny Iran access to nuclear wepaons in probably 8-12, or 5-15 years (estimations vary), or not? If you answer with Yes, you are better advised to will the limited use of small nukes on selected targets, too, else you cannot acchieve your objective, which must be: destruction, not delay.

One thing must be clear, though: the use of nukes will effectively delete any remaining scruples by others to use nukes themselves, and it will immensly fuel islamic propaganda, taking it as further justification to fight the West by means of terror. both national and non-national actors will have this modern precedence as an excuse. Total war always works both sides.

CONTINGENCY. This is what every military high command in the world does. They have stacks and stacks of contingency plans available. Anyone familiar with the way these things work wouldn't give this story a glance.

@ Avon, Happy New Year.;)

Yes, I know all that. I believe I suggested TLAM strikes (along with MOAB saturation) of the targets to knock down resistance, then insert ground troops at the sites to complete the destruction.

Are the American people prepared for this? Will we do it? No and probably not.

Napoleon?? Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

Well said.:up:

In the interest of Brevity. Here is an excerpt from a book written by Marine corps Gen. Smedley Butler in 1932. The title is,"War is a Racket."

The following is an excerpt from a speech Gen. Butler delivered in 1933…one of over 1,200 speeches he delivered in over 700 US cities.

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

For starters perhap US should stop shenanigans like Iraq. Had us all fooled really well with that one. Now we are wasting I don't know how much time there for nothing. Everyone who supported the US in that war now has poo on their face.

As for isolationism, be prepared to say hello to economic stagnation and social unrest if you do that. No modern country today would support isolationism if they know what is best for them. Not the americans, not the french, the germans, the brits. No one. We are now stuck with this world together whether we want it or not. Which means taking the cake or the crap from whom ever the fickle american voters decides should run their country.

And I will make sure to comment that denmark is among the few nations that has supported USA in Iraq and afghanistan for the full duration of the conflicts. Doesn't mean I think its sign of particularly smart thinking, however.

Social unrest, but for whom? Not us, that's for sure. I completely disagree with your premise that by keeping US troops in our country and not allowing foreigners free reign in the US would lead to "economic stagnation". The US would continue to trade with the world. Food, goods, and material would still go in and out. Just no more World Bank, UN, and peacekeeping missions. No more US Navy acting as world policeman. The Soviet Union is gone, you don't have anything to worry about except your neighbor, and it looks like Europe no longer has the urge to erupt into war every 20 years like it used to.

We'll keep our cake for ourselves.:yep: And we can deal with our crap.

Understandable, but you need the world probably as much as others need you. Just thinking on the economical interdependencies. The impact on your way of living if returning to isolationism probably would kill any government sticking to it. and I can't magine 330 million people all of a sudden give up their luxury live and excessive consummation of both goods and ressources and live like the Amish - although that maybe is not the worst way of living. Would you? Would I? We both answer No, don't we!?

Sky, never in our history have we had economic isolationism, nor is that what Neal is talking about.

Yes, you are correct. I don't know how to make that point more clear ;)
And isolationism is not my prefered choice but as an American, I get really tired of the nagging and whining about us. If I am at a party and everyone is upset about me, I simply leave.

And take all our Overseas Aid money with us. :D

Maybe, but the US has not become an international player after WWII for altruistic reasons only. International enaggement also means the ability to project international influence. Power. Shape internatio0nal orgnaization like one would want them to be, so that they feed back onto one's own economy positively, not negatively. WTO and ICF are god examples, they directly reflect massive American design input. But if you withdraw from all that, and piss off nations who love the UN (just an example), then why should they be willing to to business with you? even more so when they see that thy can hurt you when they don't trade with you? You need a lot of certain ore and other ressource for hightech, for space and aero technology, for example, much of that comes from Africa. when you project no influenc there, other nations will take over - and make sure to damage you by keeping you away from access. One rival less. Your trade deficit is legendary. If you do no longer pose a threat, or play the international card, why should others continue to pump money into your economy!? It depends on foreign investements. Probably no western economy can survive anymore without international envestements, but no other economy I see as vulenrabel to this as the american. You are livng on credit.no, I can't see isolationsim to be a good option for the US. Bush seem to have been told that, too, in a speech short while ago he also said that isolationism will only damage the american economy. You simply depend on being international. Skip the political part of it, no longer being able to protect the economical internationalsim that way, and you start dying.Isolationism only is an option for someone why can afford to run his shop truly autark. I do not see that conditon being fulfilled, wether politically, nor economically. not only with regard to the US, but all the West. This is an invitation to unite, but it is also one of our greatest weaknesses.

Problem is, you cant just expect the trade to roll in and out. Because sooner or later someone is going to blow a fuse. And then there is war. And before you know it, the merchants are being shot out of the sea like it was 1941.

I think the wealth is precisely because, even if Iraq is a hellhole, there is a sort of Pax Romana being kept by the US as the strongest guarantee. Everyone benefits from this. The minute USA turned to isolationism, a power vacuum would emerge, and BOOM. New war.

Let us not forget, when all this is being debated at the UN and about Iraq is probably the 10%. The remaining 90% is just "done" by everyday administration, trade between countries etc. But it doesn't make headlines very often, unlike the 10%.

The French and the Saudis seem to think that the Grim Reaper has captured him first.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...538569,00.html

I suppose that the war on terror is won. Champagne all around.

I wouldn't touch a zip of that Champagne, because war on the terrorism isn't won solely on Bin Laden's death.

First of all, it's simply crazy to say there is war against terrorism, how can one proclaim war against terrorism, it's unworkable. For the type of enemy we fight, its simple, for every one of them we kill, 2 sprouts out, out of rage. It's printed in the book, for them the book is the only way. Therefore, for eternity we will see terrorism. You can appease it, but not eradicate it.

Clearly.

If there's any substance to the rumour of Bin Laden's death (of natural causes while roaming the ME a free man not so good, little satisfaction there) then that could be the Oct surprise. I'm hoping whathever the cause, that he is either dead or captured as this guy's been on the loose far too long for public enemy #1.

Either way of course the fight goes on, but the "war"? Never been fond of that "war on terror" phrase. Great campaign slogan, absolutely useless in terms of defining accurately how one must deal with terrorism.

Think about this. Maybe it's not a good thing if ObL is dead. He's pretty good at playing the hidden rabbit and as such is not a lightening rod for terrorists to get behind anymore. He's more useful alive then dead. Food for thought.