tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post113767952250911666..comments2023-11-03T09:36:22.100-04:00Comments on In From the Cold: Then What?George Smileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-1137765035903604322006-01-20T08:50:00.000-05:002006-01-20T08:50:00.000-05:00Good comments, all....Regarding the B-2, it's wort...Good comments, all....<BR/><BR/>Regarding the B-2, it's worth remembering that we only built 20 of the aircraft, and not all are operational at any given time. And while the B-2 can service multiple targets per mission, the Iranian target set is large--beyond the capabilities of a single aircraft type. <BR/><BR/>If we decide to puruse the military option with Iran, I envision an "Allied Force" operation, built almost entirely around airpower. There is little consideration for a ground option, unless Iran does something like invade Iraq. Iran is roughly the size of Alaska; it has tremendous defensive depth in a ground campaign, and they would harass us every step of the way, using Basilj forces, which belong to the IRGC. Too much ground to occupy, and too many difficulties in the occupation for us to completely take over Iran. However, I could envision an incursion into the Bandar Abbas area and selected Persian Gulf islands, to prevent Tehran from shutting the straits of Hormuz. <BR/><BR/>To be effective, we would have to mount a massive air operation whose endurance would likely surpass the 88-day campaign mounted against Serbia. Hammer suspected nuclear sites, ballistic missile garrisons/operating locations, air defense nodes, telecommunications centers, and military concentrations over and over and over again. Meanwhile, AEGIS-equipped Navy vessels and Patriot batteries would defend our forces in the region from missile attack, while the ARROW II system does the same task for Israel. In this scenario, Iranian use of chem and bio weapons is virtually a certainity; that will make it tougher on our personnel in the region, who will have to fight the war in CBW suits, in stifling desert heat. <BR/><BR/>Finally, there is no guarantee that even a sustained air campaign will completely eliminate Iran's WMD capabilities and delivery platforms. Hopefully, it would be enough to trigger an internal revolt, much as we saw in Serbia following ALLIED FORCE.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712369389411084085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-1137710142405647902006-01-19T17:35:00.000-05:002006-01-19T17:35:00.000-05:00I disagree, paul s.The B-2 scenario you mention as...I disagree, paul s.<BR/><BR/>The B-2 scenario you mention assumes that these "known" facilities can be shut down from above. However, I have to believe that although the mullahs may be mad, they aren't stupid: there will be multiple access points, including multiple ventilation shafts, into multiple, perhaps redundant, subterranean complexes. These complexes would likely be scattered all over the countryside, perhaps including sitting right under heavily populated areas.<BR/><BR/>There's an old adage that a wounded beast is the most dangerous of all. The B-2 strike would be a deep scratch, as it were, but nowhere near fatal. And that scratch would make the beast much more likely to go nuclear than not.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile the Strategic Studies Institute has this to say with regards to its document on Iranian containment:<BR/><BR/><I>To contain and deter Iran from posing such threats, the United States and its friends could take a number of steps:<BR/><BR/>...<B>encouraging Israel to set the pace of nuclear restraint in the region</B> by freezing its large reactor at Dimona and calling on all other states that have large nuclear reactors to follow suit...</I><BR/><BR/>(emphasis mine)<BR/><BR/><B>WTF??? Why does everyone think that "getting Israel to play nice" by "being an example" is going to do ANYTHING other than encourage the Islamofascists???</B><BR/><BR/>Israel has been the model of nuclear restraint in the region for over three decades. To my knowledge, she has never, ever overtly threatened anyone with the possibility of a nuclear response, much less even publicly admitting or confirming that she has a nuclear IRBM capability.<BR/><BR/>Contrast this behavior with that of Iran, Pakistan, and other states or political groups crowing about the nukes they either have, or want to have.<BR/><BR/>There's simply no comparison. The SSI's suggestion that Israel dismantle its public nuclear power works on the [slim] hope of appeasing the Islamofascists is just that: appeasement. Israel has very little petrochemical resources of its own to use for power generation, and not much hydro, so civilian nuclear power makes a lot of sense there. Iran and the other "oil tick" nations, however, have so much petroleum and natural gas to use for energy generation that the cost of nuclear power makes that option financially ludicrous.<BR/><BR/>Unless, of course, the civilian nuclear power facilities are tweaked to put out a little plutonium 239 on the side, you know, for a rainy day...<BR/><BR/>/sigh...Wanderlusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06552045133035246679noreply@blogger.com