Political Discussions
US Bombing Iran's Nukes?
Posted by anticsrocks • 10/07/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: bombing, iran, mop, north korea, nuclear, nuke, obama, uon
ABC News released a Pentagon funding "reprogramming" request concerning MOPs (Massive Ordinance Penetrators).
Does this mean we are preparing a strike on Iran's Nukes? North Korea's?
Read the full story here: abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-preparing-bomb-iran/story?id=8765343
Read the Pentagon funding request here: abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/reprogramming_memo_091006.pdf
User Comments
-
Probably just being prepared/readying for negotiations-
One would hope that preparations are being made in advance. This admin seems a bit naive on the world stage so far.
-
-
Be realistic please. US can not strike on Iran's bases. That would be its end.
Iran is not Iraq and international reaction wouldn't be the same as Iraq war.-
That would be who's end? The United States? HA! Sorry, but that is just so crazy to say that. Would we be popular? No. Would we be attacked by another country? Get serious.
-
End of what? The world is bankrupt and only a handful of world navies (UK, France, India, Japan) have any significant global deployment capability, along with a few others (Australia, Pakistan and Russia mainly) that have a very limited long-distance deployment of just a few battle groups.
Of these, India and Russia are very threatened by a nuclear Iran, as probably is Pakistan. Japan has an amendment in their constitution that says they cannot fight unless struck first. UK has enough American troops inside of it to start a veritable Civil War in their borders. And France has only one Aircraft Carrier, whose engine doesn't work... And the Aussies have no aircraft carriers and no substantial submarine fleet. -
I agree with you jeremy and I ask this not to dispute your reply to but to seek your opinion: What of the massive build up going on in China right now? They are seeking a blue water fleet, but as of right now have no real sea power.
-
@antics: It will take them years to build up the capacity needed to challenge the US except maybe for some minor merchant raiding and Intel work. My suspicion is a lot of it, though they don't want it to look this way, is to protect their SSBN (Ballistic Missile Sub) fleet and merchant shipping, and to defend against India, an occasional adversary, who does have bluewater ability and has a destroyer and frigate flotilla dozens of times more capable then it was just a few years ago. They are complimenting this new found ability with aircraft carriers including the recently purchased Admiral Gorshkov and one more under construction in an Indian shipyard.
-
This from Conservative Hideout 2.0
"Annually, it has been reported by the experts in the A.P. that China has been spending 10 percent of the country’s wealth for the past 2 decades for their military. Officials figure that China spends about $71 billion a year on their armed forces, but some experts believe that they spend a lot more than that."
conservativehideout.com/wordpress/?p=2088
The author lists his references for his article at the above link. -
My concern with China is that it doesn't need to be able to face off with the US navy. It only needs to be powerful enough to face off with whatever portion of the US navy is allocated in the waters China is interested in. The easy answer there is that our navy will just switch allocation, but that will cause us to have fewer resources in other waters than we originally thought we needed.
It wouldn't take much of an increase in China's navy to cause the US to have to increase our navy to maintain our relative safty. -
I agree with you on that.
-
-
First, you count me the ammunitions in countries. But a victory in war can only be achieved by man power. US has sent approx. 200 000 soldiers to Iraq and it disturbed US citizens so much. But we are talking about 1 million soldiers in Iran. Can you imagine the deployment to defeat 1 million armed soldiers?? And these soldiers would probably fight to death in a possible a war against US. I think there's nothing wrong to provide stability in small countries like Iraq but Iran is not like Iraq. --Don't forget vietnam disaster--
Second, Obama thinks right about Iran. He is a sensible guy and gives a chance to talks. So he should ask himself what Iran demands from West? I don't think that all Iranian people have extremist views about US. If a good trading would be signed between countries, there can be peace. Iran demands nuclear technology and US+EU demands oil.-
@ophase...Obama is not a sensible guy. Obama is an appeaser. Bullies only understand one thing - power.
You miss a few key points.
First - Iran's army isn't as all powerful as you seem to assume, otherwise they would have wiped Iraq off the map in the '80s.
Second - The growing dissent in Iran is palpable. Much of the populace is ready for any chance to overthrow the Mullahs. They see the Iraqi people free and want a taste of that themselves, so to say that they have the resolve to fight to the death is a gross overstatement.
Third - We would not have to deploy as many soldiers as you might think. Our air power is superior and if Iran is stupid enough to nuke Israel, then even with Obama in office, they would feel the wrath of the United States. His leftist advisers would surely not keep him from doing the right thing.
Fourth - Iran wants one thing FOR the west - complete annihilation. They want nothing FROM the west. They have lied repeatedly in the past, they will lie again and they are lying now. No sanctions, no promises of money or arms, no negotiations at all will keep Iran from pursuing nuclear military power.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
