Steeler

Let's set aside for the moment your opinion that all of us who disagree just reflexively hate the President, invalidating our comments. That's not helpful or honest. Instead, let's talk tactics.

First, the myth of targetted surgical nuclear strikes. You know how to make a tactical nuclear weapon? Get a regular weapon and write "tactical" next to it. You can call them "battlefield nukes," "frogs," "bunker busters," or whatever. We're still talking about kiloton loads much bigger than any nuclear detonation ever seen on Earth. They are designed to wipe out cities, populations, women and children and all. You are still left with fallout and massive civilian casualties.

And as you've said, you are still left with the political consequences. How will China react? North Korea? Our allies? Once you have a superpower fielding nukes against non-nuclear countries, all bets are off.

So then we settle on conventional air strikes. Those would likely be successful, at least at taking out the known research facilities. What then? Iran is still sitting on a massive modern army backed by irregulars. They still have agents in Iraq. Are we prepared to counter a concerted attack on our forces in Iraq, while still trying to build a stable government there? Last I checked, we are no longer gearing up for a fight with the Group of Soviet Forces Germany. Rumsfeld has a vision of spec-ops teams and elite forces travelling around the world and solving problems with technology (and possibly BA Baracus).

Speaking of which, these commando teams you propose should drop into these facilities to finish them off? Where are they based? Iraq, Afghanistan? Where should they resupply when they are deep in Iran? How should they get there? This transformation of the army into a Charles Bronson movie ignores some basic fundamentals of warfighting. The only way you can have the logistical support to 1) destroy the target, and 2) keep them from rebuilding the target, is to control the field of conflict. That means a massive ground invasion supported by air bombing.

It's easy to say "we have to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons." Yeah, that would be nice. But the consequences of doing that incorrectly out of fear and hatred are just as devastating as having to deal with a nuclear Iran 20 years from now.

__________________

leejo

So what is your plan of action? You're great at telling us how military options won't work. How do we prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

leejo

Good questions. To be blunt, I think long-term we need to work for a regime change in Iran. The desired end-result in Iran is a friendly, democratic society that does not threaten its neighbors or even its enemies with terror attacks and doesn't make statements about wiping other nations off the map. How we get there may well be a long-term problem with which several administrations wrangle, but right now we have an imminent problem to solve.

Until the happy day comes that we all get along, I think we target capabilities. If they have a building that gives them the ability to build a bomb, we knock it down. If they build it again, we knock down the next one. A la air attacks on german railway lines in northern France leading up to Overlord. We bomb it, they rebuild it, we bomb it again, they rebuild it, and then finally we have the capacity to attack in a manner that is decisive.

I think this is a really crappy situation, and lord knows I'd love a real, verifiable, and sustainable diplomatic solution, but I'm equally unprepared to throw up my arms and consider Iran-as-a-nuclear-power simply part of the new world order.

xTYBALTx

This entire paragraph is false.

And for the record. Largest nuclear weapon ever succesfully tested: 57,000 kilotons. Wow.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

xTYBALTx

Yeah it's a tough situation, I agree on that. But I still think a US strike on Iran would be counterproductive. I think we would be in a weaker position because of it. But I can understand why there is such support for it; we're dealing with a situation in which everything is speculative and we don't know what to expect going forward, so we end up with many viable opinions and options.

Agree to disagree?

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Steeler

Open a diplomatic channel, for one. Figure out where the pressure points are, who's actually in charge. Ahmadinejad may be playing the crazy populist saber-rattler, but he isn't Hamas, and he isn't the final authority. The Revolution is old enough at this point that there is probably some significant realpolitik going on within the clerical and the civilian leadership. Just as Arab merchants trade with Israel all the time even though it is forbidden in their home countries, the rhetoric in Iran may be just as much show as sincere. If so, we have a chance at eventual reconciliation, at the top of the ladder at the very least. That is the start of the path, although there are a lot of roadblocks - chiefly the Palestinian conflict. Much of middle east politics hinges on that.

My point is that we have this window here before Iran has serious chances of building a nuke where diplomacy and efforts to affect internal change can still work. If, however, we continue to be overly belligerent, we may force them into a nationalistic arms race, where the hardliners gain permanent control. Just a few years ago we were hearing about Khatami and reform and all sorts of Democratic rumblings. That failed, and our own actions in the region haven't spoken well of our intentions, contributing to the rise of more militant power.

Most importantly, we need unity of purpose with the UN and other nations. We can't be effective at leveling sanctions or negotiating peace if other nations are slipping Iran trade deals or threatening them with annihilation on the side.

Of course that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.

__________________

Steeler

I misspoke about the size of the blast. However, I stand by my civilian casualties and fallout comment.

__________________

AMosely

We don't. We prevent them from using them by not provoking and attacking them.

The happy day (peace) will never come until everyone, including us, stops targeting anything.

Switchcraft

Meanwhile, back in the real world, all they seem to want to talk about is wiping one of their neighbors off the map. I don't like your plan.

leejo

Oh Christ. Well by all means lets not provoke Iran!

xTYBALTx

B61 Nuclear Weapon @ Wikipedia

Tactical versions (Mods 3, 4, and 10) can be set to 0.3, 1.5, 5, 10, 60, 80, or 170 kiloton explosive yield (depending on version). The strategic version (B61 Mod 7) has four yield options, with a maximum of 340 kilotons.

Sources conflict on the yield of the earth-penetrating Mod 11; the physics package or bomb core components of the Mod 11 are apparently unchanged from the earlier strategic Mod 7, however the public declassified 2001 Nuclear Posture Review [3] states that the B-61-11 has only a single yield; some sources indicate 10 KT, others suggest the 340 kiloton maximum yield as the Mod-7.


FAS Article on feasability of B61-11

As described in detail below, however, the use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout.

Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.

-------------------

My conclusion? These weapons are not designed to wipe out cities. They are designed to destroy deep underground bunkers just like those found in Iran. And unless those bunkers are really far from populated areas (an actual possibility in Iran), we won't be able to use the tactical weapons. That means we'll have to put people on the ground.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Steeler

Specifics aside, this was my point.

__________________

leejo

By the way, I didn't say what you said, so please try not to put words in my mouth. I do think that many who are taking the position that there's nothing to be done are merely taking the position that is opposite of the President's, and I do think that several of you would just about rather see something horrible happen than have GWB "win".

It may not be helpful, but it is honest, and it's my opinion. I'd love for you to "set aside for the moment" some of the things you say, but apparently I don't have that power.

AMosely

According to sources cited in my original post, the consensus of military leadership in the Pentagon also agrees with this assessment. Those same sources seem to be indicating that the White House and civilian leadership in the Pentagon disagrees. This difference in opinion is why I made the post, although I'm not surprised that the thread has taken on a nuclear vs. non-nuclear debate, which should have been put to rest long ago, but is instead rekindled thanks to a foolish Iranian leader and an American 'war on terror.'

leejo

I think the fact that the nuclear v. non-nuclear debate hasn't been put to rest reflects the seriousness of the matter and the degree to which the political leadership consider a nuclear Iran unacceptable. I agree. We may need to pick the best bad option here, but under no circumstances can Iran go nuclear under its present leadership.

It may also be useful for the Iranian leaders to believe that our wacky neocons might just be crazy enough to do it.