If there really was a strike against Iran in the offing you can damn well bet the farm that there would be nothing about it in the news ahead of time. This smells like a planned leak, which probably has two purposes in mind.

1) Reassure the increasingly angry War on Terror hawks that the Bush Bunch hasn't gone squishy soft with all that fancy- shmancy Euro-diplomacy stuff and we are taking some sort of military action too
2) Bluff the Iranians into thinking that we are preapred to strike if they don't negotiate meaningfully

For sure there will be no Iran War before the election. Gas prices are just going down to where the GOP imagines they won't get creamed by the voters. They would let the Mullahs get away with anything short of an actual strike on Saudi Arabia or Israel before they would risk anything that might sink the GOP at the polls. Remember, these guys are all about politics. Iran, Iraq, even Osama bin Laden are just useful props for their Theater of the Absurd.

So, you're saying that if Bush orders air strikes on Iran -

- Iran would not make any meaningful response, like invading Iraq (which they arguably have already done)

- Iran would not send missles to Israel

- Democratic candidates would be "speechless." (and for that to happen, our citizens would have to be completely apathetic about yet another pre-emptive war)

- And because of all of the above, Karl Rove would be considered a genius (again) and the republicans would ride this brilliant tactic to victory.

I just don't see it. Surely the Iranians have a plan in place for this. If everyone in the US knows it could happen, surely the Iranians do too.

- IF Bush is horrible enough to do this, and
- IF the army doesn't mutiny against him, and
- IF an air strike goes forward, and
- WHEN Iran unleashes whatever retaliation they have prepared

-->Democratic candidates will have plenty to say, and the whole world will listen. I hope it doesn't happen, but nothing these criminals do can surprise me.

Jan Knaus

I just don't think China will sit back and allow the US to do that. They have way too much invested in Iran - Russians do too for that matter.

I never thought I would be counting on China and Russia to defend us from our madman, but they are who I am banking on to prevent another catastrophe from happening.

Hi Reed,

'Everyone believes that the Europeans supported the American go-ahead for the Palestinian invasion because they wanted to make sure the Iranians knew they were on thin ice.'

Eh?

'Everyone believes that as a going-away present, Blair would like to support President Bush in at least one more military incursion.'

Eh?

'It's fairly clear that air strikes on Iran would stun most Democratic candidates into speechlessness.'

Eh?

You seem like a moonbat, please prove me wrong by reposting.

Regs, Shaggy

Billmon's take on "The Day After" nuking Iran should be required reading for everyone. I believe it is so important that I will quote it at length:

I've been trying to picture what the world might look like the day after a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran, but I'm essentially drawing a blank. There simply isn't a precedent for the world's dominant superpower turning into a rogue state – much less a rogue state willing to wage nuclear war against potential, even hypothetical, security threats.

......

[T]he current hegemony of American influence and ideas (backed by overwhelming military force) would be replaced by an overt dictatorship based – more or less explicitly – on fear of nuclear annihilation. U.S. foreign policy would become nothing more than a variation on the ancient Roman warning: For every one of our dead; 100 of yours. Never again would American rulers (or their foreign counterparts) be able to hide behind the comfortable fiction that the United States is just primus inter pares – first among equals. A country that nukes other countries merely on the suspicion that they may pose a future security threat isn't the equal of anybody. America would stand completely alone: hated by many, feared by all, admired only by the world’s other tyrants. To call that a watershed event seems a ridiculous understatement.

..........

But, barring another 9/11, or a worldwide financial meltdown, the day after a nuclear strike on Iran might not look that much different than the day before, at least to the folks back home. The impact on oil prices – and even more importantly, on prices at the pump – might be containable, at least in the short-term, if the Straits of Hormuz remain open and the strategic oil reserve does what it's supposed to do. (Very big ifs, to be sure, but not impossible ones. Neither of the last two wars in the gulf turned into the energy catastrophes everyone had feared when they started.) Financial markets might actually rally if Wall Street judges the strike to have been a "success." As for an Iranian-backed terror offensive in Iraq, at this point you have to wonder if anyone would notice.

For most Americans, then, the initial impact of war with Iran could play out in the same theatre of the absurd as the first Gulf War and the opening phases of the Iraq invasion – that is to say, on their living room TVs. And if there's one place where a nuclear first strike could be made to appear almost normal, or even a good thing, it's on the boob tube.

After all, the corporate media complex has already shown a remarkable willingness to ignore or rationalize conduct that once would have been considered grossly illegal, if not outright war crimes......

Let's be honest about it: For both the corporate and the conservative media, as well as for their audiences, an air campaign against Iran would make for great TV – a welcome return to the good old days of Desert Storm and Shock and Awe. All those jets soaring off into the desert twilight; the overexposed glare of cruise missiles streaking from their launch ships; the video game shots of exploding aircraft hangers and government buildings, the anti-aircraft tracers arcing into the night sky over Tehran – it would be war just the way we like it, far removed from the dull brown dust, raw sewage and multiple amputees of the Iraqi quagmire.

And to keep things interesting, we’d have the added frisson of nuclear weapons – a plot twist that would allow blow-dried correspondents to pose in borrowed radiation suits, give Pentagon flacks the opportunity to try out new euphemisms for killing people, and encourage retired generals to spice up their on-air military patter with knowing references to blast effects, kilotons, roentgens and fallout patterns.

What I'm suggesting here is that it is probably naive to expect the American public to react with horror, remorse or even shock to a U.S. nuclear sneak attack on Iran, even though it would be one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable, short of mass genocide. Iran has been demonized too successfully – thanks in no small part to the messianic delusions of its own end-times president – for most Americans to see it as a victim of aggression, even if they were inclined to admit that the United States could ever be an aggressor. And we know a not-so-small and extremely vocal minority of Americans would be cheering all the way, and lusting for more.

More to my point, though, I think it's possible that even something as monstrously insane as nuclear war could still be squeezed into the tiny rituals that pass for public debate in this country – the game of dueling TV sound bites that trivializes and then disposes of every issue.

......

It’s possible, of course, that I’m dead wrong about the short-term effects of a strike on Iran. It could quickly lead to economic catastrophe and a wider war, or evolve into a full-fledged U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran – i.e. “regime change.” This may be the entire essence of the neocon plan. The resulting quagmire could make the Vietnam War look like a minor colonial skirmish with the natives. But even if none of these nightmares come to pass, it’s still a fair bet – based on recent experience – that the long-term consequences of war with Iran would be wholly bad, both for America and the world.

But my thought exercise – What if we started a nuclear war and everybody pretended not to notice? – is still useful, if only as a reminder of how easy it can be to lead gullible people down a path that ends in a place no sane human being would ever want to go. A nation that can live with the idea of launching a nuclear first strike isn’t likely to have much trouble with the rest of the program – particularly when its people, like their leader, are convinced they’ve been chosen to save the world.

Please remember that casualty estimates from such an attack number in the millions.

Isn't Hillary saying "keep all options on the table" regarding Iran. Et tu, Hillary?

Tom

Speaking of moonbats, how are Cheney, Rummy, and Boy King George doing.

Tom

Uh, yeah Reed, can you back this up a bit? Give us a little bit of sense that this is grounded in something other than rumours and speculation.

I'm repeating the post I had above.

The dems can't just sit back and wonder whether or not this is going to happen.

LETS GET IN FRONT OF THE EVENTS. NOW!

Run Lyndon Johnsons Daisy/Mushroom cloud ad from 1964.

Use Lyndon Johnsons voice over.

Look the ad is already cut and ready to go. It just needs minor framing for the present. That ad was crafted when democrats still had some stones. No one respects someone just waiting to be nocked senseless. Its like the French during the phoney war.

That ad will creap everyone out just enough to bring the electorate to their senses and just maybe paralyze the Neocon apparatus and put them on the defensive.

It doesn't matter if the Iran talk is a false leak or leak. Get in front of the event. Run the ad now. Give people something to think about.

If Bush doesn't bomb Iran, he pays a price anyway. If he does bomb Iran, that ad will help people determine their positions before the actual shock of the event stuns them into submission.

AND, GOD DAMMIT, GET IN FRONT OF THE EVENTS, NOT BEHIND THEM!!!!!

Its time the Democrats do their job.

This is it.

I'm sick and tired of the limp response and waiting like shaking rabbits for the next shoe to fall. Do something now, proactively and put the bastards on the defensive. Americans respect vigor, Not the Kerry-esque do nothingism.

Quit being Rove's patsy. Make them pay a price for bellicosy NOW. Its not about applying a hammer. Its about strength and smarts. Paint them into a corner with their bellicosy. That's our job as the rational opposition party. Make them look irrational.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

I don't think Bush will pull the trigger before the election. Here's why:

1. It will look too political so clode to the midterms.

2. It will drive the the price of oil up, and gas prices will end their slide. Gas prices are a factor in consumer confidence.

3. Bush has the terror issue which should be enough keep the GOP in the game (if not winning) for the rest of the 2006 campaign.

4. I don't think Bush has a gameplan for
what to do after the airstrikes. He will need to come up with a credible plan for Iran when he's still bogged down in Irag.

5. Iraq is a much larger country with lots
of mountainous terrain. It's possible the
airstrikes will fail.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I still think we're
in the saber-rattling stage.

It's fairly clear that air strikes on Iran would stun most Democratic candidates into speechlessness.

Why should that be so clear? Why should that be so?

The administration has been saber-rattling for quiet some time, if you believe the likes of Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter remember him?)who have been writing about the administration's Iran war ambitions for well over a year....Doing it now would not be politically astute, although you never know what this administration is capable of...Keep in mind it took quite awhile for the build up to Iraq. Certainly more than the 50 or so days we have until the election (Also, it wouldn't take a display of Shock and Awe to dumbfound the Democrats. They haven't found their voice for the past 5 years).... Should the GOP control Congress after Nov. 7, it wouldn't surprise me to see the administration take its "crusade" to the next level ... Regarding the torture debate: I don't think that is a subterfuge. I'm more in line with NYT columnist Bob Herbert who thinks the call to change the (Geneva) law is the brass trying to save its ass.

I have got a nickle bet that says we don't invade. But as CVille Dem says, nothing they could do would surprise me.

The Stain of the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam has not yet been expunged, and won't be until the Course has been Stayed, the Troops have been Supported and they have proven themselves Not To Have Blinked. God in heaven, deliver us from these bereft anti-communists gone amok.

Will the shrewd mercantile Yankees out-maneuver the ready-to-rumble Cowboys? I say yes. Baker is an encouraging sign.

There are at least a dozen known Iranian nuclear sites. Estimates suggest that the real number of sites, identified, concealed and distributed might number as high as thirty. Many of these sites are hardened, requiring potentially multiple strikes.

Assuming one bomber to each site, and an escort of three fighters, you would need approximately 30 bombers and 90 fighters or 120 aircraft in all. Factor in redundancy for hardened sites, and double your bombers, you go up to 150.

However, in order to successfully conduct the raid, you need to take out Iranian radar sites, so that they can't provide early warning of the attack. Add in a few dozen more military targets. And you probably need to take out airfields and fighter jets on the ground, which means a wide ranging campaign of airstrip denial and attacks on aircraft. Since civilian airstrips can be used by military jets in a pinch, you have to take those out too. And you need to take out missile emplacements and missile batteries. Dozens more targets. Of course, its also crucial to take out communications, so satellite phones, land lines, cell phone transmission, radio stations, etc., both civilian and military. You have to take out civilian facilities to avoid the military making back up use. You also need to take out military command and control structures. More and more targets. And you have to neutralize potential sea responses, so its a must to attack Iranian ships and shipyards.

Which means that the attack would involve 30 primary targets, and somewhere between 400 and 1200 secondary targets.

America simply doesn't have the aerial firepower to hit that many targets on one big raid. What we would be looking at are continuous air missions over a period of days.

Good luck, boyos.

We'd also be looking at decades of blowback.

Tom

I wonder if anyone actually heard the message of Ahmadinejad's speech. He was basically saying that he would give up his nuclear program for a seat on the Security Council. It may not be something we would be willing to do, but at least it's an opening for further negotiations. Now that we know what he's really after, a mutually beneficial deal is at least conceivable.

I expect the West to counter with a proposal to give a seat on the council to an Iranian ally, so that Iran can effectively have veto power without the West losing face.

"Air strikes on Iran would not risk many American fliers. Iran would probably not invade Iraq in retaliation. Iran probably wouldn't launch missiles at Israel for payback. Is it thinkable?"

Reed Hundt makes three assertions and backs them up with nothing beyond the fact that he is Reed Hundt.

Reed. First explain why an air attack on an oil rich nation which started with an American trained and American equipped military and which while under sanctions from us has had 25 years to build up their anti-air defenses "would not risk many American fliers". People who blithely assume that attacking Iran by air is the same as attacking an Iraq that one, had a much harsher sanctions program, and two had undergone 10 years of 'No Fly Zones' where the US held continous and sustained air superiority under rules of engagement that allowed them to attack any air-defense site that lit up its radar really need to show us some military credentials. Iran is a much bigger, much more rugged country with a totally non-degraded air-defense system, well those people need to explain WHY an attack "would not risk many American fliers". God know we ate enough cake in the last Cakewalk.

"Iran would probably not invade Iraq in retaliation". Again WHY do you make this claim. You base this on what? And Iran does not have to "invade", all it needs to do is to flood the zone with volunteers and 'volunteers'. A few thousand Revolutionary Guards in Iraqi clothing and a steady stream of suicide bombers coming over the border would make life a certain hell for American and British soldiers.

"Iran probably wouldn't launch missiles at Israel". No probably not, no percentage in it. But under the circumstances I don't think Hezbollah would exactly be restrained.

If simplistic air chair theorizing was not so dangerous it would be amusing. If there is a single person out there who has presented a serious analysis of how airstrikes would do more than delay by a few years a weapons program, that if it exists, and it may well not, is by everyone I have read at least a decade out?

Other than some transient political advantages in the mid-terms exactly what is this supposed to accomplish? Reed is adopting Bush Administration assumptions wholesale and asking us to think along Bush Administration lines.

Well I refuse. This is nutty talk from megalomaniacs and indulging in "What if" is suicidal. Strategic bombing is pretty much a proven failure. It doesn't work. What did England do when it underwent a severe campaign of nighttime bombing? What was their response to civilians getting killed? Was it riots against the government? Hell no, the Blitz and the collective reaction of Britons to it is a point of national pride.

Please someone present me a historical case where a population has blamed its own government for another country bombing civilian positions? Please for God's sake don't let us indulge another one of Michael Ledeen's mad fantasies. Hope is NOT a Plan.

There was an interesting report/analysis on NPR this morning of the reappearance, Dracula-like,of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon -- that special policy group to keep an eye on/trump up intelligence about Iraq, now brought back by popular acclaim to create an Iran war.

Forget strikes on Israel. They wouldn't play that card so early in the conflict, plus there's too much downside (sorry, crazy evangelicals, no Rapture this time). I think attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz would be more likely. The oil markets would freak and we'd be back to, if not over, $3.00/gallon with winter energy bills looming. Energy is a pocketbook issue. Tehran knows this.

If the US attacks Tehran, expect burning tankers within minutes. The news cycle would start predicting the fallout and the Republicans would be seriously threatened. A strike may energize the conservtaive base, but it would also energize the opposition and reduce the swing vote.

I just got a question in to a panel on the Diane Rehm show discussing the US and Iran. My question was about the Ellsberg article citing Sy Hersh's evidence that we're headed into Iran before the end of the year, and the news report on NPR this morning about the resuscitation of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon -- both mention in earlier comments. Will we be going into Iran, militarily and soon?

Diane Rehm added her comment that 54% of Americans think we should go into Iran.

All three guests on the show seem to think Bush will start a war.

You can listen to the show here -- later, when the audio is posted -- here, or tune in live right now.

I think Reed and, by extension, almost all the comments are treating the gossip far too uncritically. We know that unnamed sources in the past ere used to get outright lies into the media through the likes of Judith Miller or push polls. Here they may not raise the same alert status for us, because they play to our own sense that the Bushies will do anything, but let's not that become an excuse to turn progressive politics into paranoia.

We should be asking hard questions, not just about what it would mean if we did nuke Iran or even about the truth of the rumors. We should be asking just who is generating them, who we should trust here other than Reed's holy wisdom, and especially what purpose they'd serve. Rumors are sometimes used to send trial balloons, sure. At other times, they're used to distract us from reality. At still other times, they are used just to send a message.

Here, Bush is losing his rep for toughness, the war is going poorly, and even the dissent = terrorism card isn't reliable. He has to distract us and to sound tough. Moreover, he hasn't accomplished a darn thing in Iran, and the options of negotiating or of military action both look unattractive to the right. He's even failed to foam at the mouth when the president of Iran addressed the UN. So a little fear-mongering has a role.

As for the truth of the rumors, call me dubious. Let's set aside even how insane it'd be. After all, we kept hearing they'd try conventional missile attacks that never came and how futile they'd be, given the dispersal of hidden targets. We just watched Israel fail in its objectives, with tragic consequences. And obviously we have no troops left and too little other military might left to pursue much of a war after Iraq; we can't even commit more troops there or return them to Afghanistan. Public support for war is hardly what it was leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Even the neocon coalition is falling apart publically. But set all that aside. Assume they're as loony as the caricature of Goldwater in that ad (which, don't forget, really was a shameful smear, despite Goldwater's militarism that revisionists now are trying to play down in order to make him the right-wing ideal Bush betrayedl).

But ask yourself, is this how the Bushies work? First, it's not in accord with their politics. they didn't murmur secretly about Iraq. They trumpeted it, stirring up the population and making Democrats in Congress cower, perhaps even forgiveably so, as well as Goebbels would admire. Second, it's not in accord with their ideology. The neocons weren't trying to knock out Iraq; they were trying to remake it and the entire Mideast in their image. A nuke here or there just isn't like that.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

24 hours ago I would have agreed with you and cheered your comment. No longer. But I hope you're right.

When we bomb Iran, all hell will break loose in the Shi'ite parts of Iraq, cutting off our long, thin supply line to Baghdad.

We'd have to bring everything into Iraq by C-130 to our four big "permanent bases," then helicopter it from there to the Green Zone (for whatever length of time we're able to retain control of the Emerald City) and wherever else we have troops.

The entirety of Arab Iraq would be up in arms against us, and our ability to supply and protect Americans in country would start breaking down pretty quickly.

I bet Karl Rove is smart enough to see how this would play out. I think his object here is to make George look tough once again to appeal to the base, yet be conciliatory in the end, to appeal to the moderates.

Funny that everyone's frothing at the mouth here that war is sure to happen while over here the Right is bemoaning that it's sure not to:

http://tinyurl.com/qch2u

One of you must be right!

Could you provide us with some of that wild-eyed Iranian rhetoric you mentioned cuz I can't seem to find any.

Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq to retaliate they only have to launch missiles at the 147,000 high value targets clustered into those nice enduring bases all across central and southern Iraq.

I question if that is a significant threat. First, Patriot PAC-3 has improved significantly, and major bases do have antimissile defense. Second, there's no indication that Iran has other than high explosive warheads for its missiles. Taking out a command post at LSA ANACONDA is harder than it may look.

Yes, they will cause casualties if fired at the residential areas, which are mostly house trailers. Massive? No. The reality is that a ballistic missile with a high-explosive warhead, lacking precision terminal guidance, is not too major a threat. Their Shahab-3's are probably accurate enough and have a large enough payload to be of some significance.

The key question is how many they have.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Apples and oranges. Hezbollah was using GRAD and a few larger unguided rockets with range mostly about 20 miles. Picture a 10 foor long piece of five-inch pipe, with a pointed nose and fins at the rear, and you have a visualization of the GRAD. These things were designed be fired hundreds at a time as area weapons, such that imprecision is actually desirable in the original role -- it causes them to spread out.

I haven't been able to find specific dimensions and weight of the Shahab-3, but it is suggestive that individual missiles are carried on tractor-trailers in the 40-ton capacity range.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

i hate to say it, but I'm starting to think they are relying on the same reaction we would expect to see in Iran. In other words, if they are attacked we expect them to rally around their leader, even if they are not entirely popular.

The same will happen here. If Iran retaliates and our soldiers get killed, or oil prices should up, yes it would be a disaster, but it will benefit the current regime, who will now be urged to fight back harder.

And I'm dubious that the majority will think any attack on Iran is unjust. It has to do with our mythology. If we do it, its right and good, by definition. This is how most people think. Something so evil as open aggression just doesn't happen here, according to most people.

I think one of the interesting bits of news today is the return of James Baker to, well, straighten things out.

You saw that too, huh?? At first I just thought maybe mom had sent Baker to put a leash on the boy, but it's more than that. Congress commissioned Baker and Lee Hamilton to chair a commission to find "political solutions" to the war. And at first I thought that meant just finding ways to moonwalk our troops out so a retreat would look like an invasion. But Sens. Lugar and Biden's testimony before the commission was an eye opener. We can't win this war, but there are ways to not lose it either.

I believe it to be politically correct, at multiple levels, that Ann Coulter should be seen and not heard.

*sigh*So much seems to depend on sound bytes. Apparently, it's far too difficult for anyone proposing intervention in Darfur to look at a map showing transportation routes -- or the lack thereof. It's easy to say "sanctions", so no one seems to be examining how threatening to the Arab part of the Khartoum coalition would be investment in South Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya.

Nahhh...it wouldn't bother al-Bashir if the South, where most of the oil has been found, could ship it out via Kenya rather than north to Port Sudan.

It is cheering that my barber spends all available spare time doing some excellent oil paintings. Hmmm...I do need a haircut...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Bruce, you wrote: "Reed is adopting Bush Administration assumptions wholesale and asking us to think along Bush Administration lines."

Reed is voicing Bush Administration assumptions, not agreeing with them. By asking us to think along Bush Administration lines, I take it his main purpose is to stimulate thinking about what the Democratic response should be if and when the Administration does the irrational, as it has done time and time again in the interests of using national security to club Democrats and increase or maintain their political power. Or do you believe such behavior is beyond them?

To my way of thinking it would really be unfortunate--and inexcusable--if the Bush Administration does go ahead and bomb Iran and Democrats are left speechless, uncoordinated, unprepared, and perhaps toasted over the national security fire once again on the eve of the elections.

I would like to hear the thoughts of Reed and others on what the best Democratic response would be if the worst happens and they do bomb Iran.

I think that what is missing from this excellent discussion is how the rest of the world outside of Iran and the U.S. would react. Especially the citizenry. I think that it would be a significant reaction and one that would continue.

But, my assumption is that they will not act prior to the election. Way too risky. I like to think that there would not be a Republican left standing though I am unsure.

What does worry me is after the election in lame duck time. What would stop them then?

global citizen

In re to your points:

1. Baloney. Since when has the fear of "looking too political" stopped them fro doing anything before? The vote on the Iraq war resolution came not long before the 2002 elections. If anything they would welcome efforts to shift focus away from their record.

2. The fear of spiking oil prices is actually by far the most plausible concern that might get them not to do it.

3. Recent polls have shown the usual Republican lead on fighting terrorism issue to be greatly reduced, sometimes even favoring the Democrats.

4. Bush won't think he needs a gameplan for what happens after the air strikes. If we bomb Iran does anyone think they will declare war on the US? And then what does Iran do? If their idea of acting on such a declaration is to attack Israel the public's instinct will once again be to rally around the President and the flag in a time of chaos. Bombing is all Bush would think his party would need and want prior to the elections: an issue. They'll have what they need to "show resolve", etc. etc. while switching the subject away from what they don't want to talk about: anything having to do with their record. You know: don't switch horses in midstream, etc. We've heard it all before and it has worked before. Maybe it won't this time, but if you're the Republicans and you're looking like you're going to lose the Congress and you have the mentality of this group, you might well throw this Hail Mary.

5. It's almost a sure thing the airstrikes would fail from the standpoint of destroying completely Iran's nuclear program, which has long been dispersed in anticipation of just such a threat. This is just a wild guess, but I would imagine the Administration would claim victory based on the visible damage, predictably overstating the extent to which the attacks disabled Iran's nuclear program. By the time the truth comes out on that, November will be ancient history, their thinking will run.

I am not saying I think they are going to do it. I don't know how any of us could know that at this point. I am saying it should be treated as a real possibility. And I think our side *must* prepare a response ahead of time so we have our act together if and when it does happen.

What shocked me this morning most was learning that an Iran invasion would have the support of 54% of themurrican people. I think that came from David Ignatius. The question may have been about an "air strike" which sounds surgical, uninvolving and "righteous." That just makes it all the more shocking, in my book. "Fool me once... and you can fool me forever."

I'm tempted to add that there are, of course, many who believe the election is in the bag, not a consideration. Pure speculation.

Assuming stealth, it's targets per bomber, not bombers per target, assuming very specific targets. In 1991, the F-117 first generation stealth aircraft usually carried two guided bombs and attacked two targets. There were a few special cases where a pair of planes, a minute or so apart, would attack the same target. The first would blow a hole, leave a minute for the debris to settle, and the second would put a second bomb through the hole. Second-generation B-2's normally carry 16 bombs, but in some circumstances could carry 48.

If it was a spread-out area target, yes, there might be multiple aircraft. Still, when the first attacks on the Ploesti refineries in WWII used 177 bombers, I doubt it would take more than 2 or 3 for equivalent targets today, where the control centers and most critical equipment could be hit.

I have heard nothing to indicate that the Iranians have built large cascades in more than one location, based on IAEA reports. In fact, I haven't heard anything that the Iranians are within several years of usable bombs.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about the present centrifuge techology. The US didn't use them because another technology was developed first in WWII, and was adequate although wouldn't be a first choice today. The separation centrifuges of which I am aware would shake themselves to pieces, rather explosively, if all power were cut. Have they been given some new technology that lets them shut down gracefully? I don't know.

The US separation plants, still using processes that took immense amounts of electricity, were located in relatively remote areas near large hydroelectric plants. If the centrifuges still have the vulnerability to power cuts, you might not need to take out the grid, only the feeds to them.

I haven't seen a map of the known Iranian facilities versus population. For reasons including security, safety, and sheer size, most countries have put their facilities in remote areas. Hardened facilities put underground usually take advantage of mountain systems, ideally in a valley where you are protected by two or more ranges, as you bore into the side of the mountain and then down -- but the bombs
have to come through the mass of the mountain.

The urgency and emphasis make very little sense to me.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

letting Iran have nukes would be a catastrophe

Why would it be a catastrophe? As far as I can see, every time some state looks set to acquire nuclear weapons, everyone starts screaming. But as soo as they've got them, they become respectable members of the international community.

As far as I can see, the objections to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are mainly that it would be able to back up Ahmenijad's (sp?) threat to wipe out Israel. But who cares what he said? As soon as Iran gets nukes, it will become engaged in a Mutual Assured Destruction scenario with nuclear-armed Israel. Any nuclear attack on Israel would bring a nuclear counterstrike on Iran.

If anything, it seems to me that there are a lot of bonuses to a nuclear-armed Iran. It is argued in some quarters that one of the problems of the Middle East is the imbalance of power between Israel and its Arab neighbours. A nuclear-armed Iran would restore the lost balance of power, and force all players in the region towards negotiations, and away from war-fighting. Israel may not like such a prospect, but in the long run the entire region is likely to benefit from diplomatic solutions rather than military ones.

And finally, even if Iran is stopped now, then it will only be a matter of time before it gets back on track for a nuclear weapon, and the whole cycle restarts. How long is it possible to go on preventing Iran from acquiring such weapons? Why not just accept the inevitable now, rather than delay it for another 10 or 20 years?

I look forward to the entire thread telling me how wrong I am.

Re: But remember, that's wont phase 30% of the population who thinks we should have nuked Hanoi.

Last I checked 30% is not a winning number in elections. I think even Goldwater got that much.

Depends on where at ANACONDA, since there are facilities specifically located, in the central areas, to be out of mortar range and rocket accuracy.

Given risks one's life by being in the military, some of that comes with the territory. There has been substantial declassification of what was wrong with PAC-3 initial deployment, which, in part, was due to a breakup of the Iraqi improvised missiles. The Shahab-3 is a threat, but it's not a WMD and Iraq doesn't have huge numbers of them.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*