[CaptainHaplo]

Zachstar - I see where your going, but let me ask this.

Is a chem or bio attack by a nation an act of war?

If so - why would you ever take a combat option off the table entirely?

Lets say NY was hit tommorow by a Bio strike that originated with Iran. *This is hypothetical obviously....*

So your saying that we should send a couple of score of bombers over to flatten all of Tehran? Lets analyze that..

Assume a low loss rate from ground fire and interceptors. 5 Buffs and maybe a couple of F15's. That is 45Mill for the Buffs, and 110Mill lost with the F15's. Now, add in the "value" of 27 trained men (and possibly women) that lose their lives in this. What monetary value to you put on that?

So we have a total cost of at LEAST 155 Million in equipment - and this doesn't factor the costs of the sorties of all the other aircraft - which would be huge. A ground strike would be even more costly - in both logistics and lives. Figure a base total cost of 250 Million - which would be a VERY low cost for such an operation (again discounting the lives lost).

One Trident II today costs 29.1 Million - and could send the same message - if not in a much stronger way. And it won't risk additional lives.
Both ways are going to cause massive collateral damage and death.

I am not saying that is the way to respond - but its foolish to take it off the table as an OPTION. Especially since the country would need to spend its money on the relief efforts - not retaliation.

*Note the above actually wouldn't be removed as Iran is not covered - only Non-Proliferation signatories are - but the mechanics stay the same.

See the point?


Edit - Platypus - good info -will read the official doc tommorow as time permits and give some feedback.