Why war with Iran would spell disaster

[jeremy]

Nuclear war is just not the same. The death and destruction possible by just a single thermonuclear device detonated on any populated area on earth is not just a "war," it'd be a slaughter.

Modern conventional weapons are pretty damn impressive in the amount off death and destruction that can be dealt out quickly as well...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Because they're always calling for death to Israel in their rhetoric! Don't you know politicians/leaders always practice what they preach?

The more important question is, wtf business is it of ours if two regional states go to war.

Must be sad to not have any friends you'd be willing to fight for. It also must be sad to not have any principals you think are worth a fight over - like supporting a beleaguered nation against a much larger opponent who hates the first nation for religious reasons.

 

[downzero]

Modern conventional weapons are pretty damn impressive in the amount off death and destruction that can be dealt out quickly as well...

If you think it's even remotely comparable, I suggest that you check out the lecture slides available at this website:
Physics 280: Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control

 

[NYFelon]

Must be sad to not have any friends you'd be willing to fight for. It also must be sad to not have any principals you think are worth a fight over - like supporting a beleaguered nation against a much larger opponent who hates the first nation for religious reasons.

Oh, oh, oh the mothereffing irony.......

 

[rambone]

It also must be sad to not have any principals you think are worth a fight over

All of my principals were jerks.

 

[upalot]

Isreal is right, we either take them out now or we wait untill they are better equipted and lose alot of US Servicemen for waiting. With a nuke they wouldn't need to hit one of our carrier groups to wipe it out, just hit anywhere within a couple of miles of it. A carrier group would have at least 7,000 men and women attached to it. I say let Isreal take the lead on this and back them up as needed.

 

[.45 Dave]

With the global economy, supportive treaties with so many countries and so many countries arguing over resources and real estate (Japan and China, for instance. NK and SK for another) it seems inevitable that sooner or later war is going to break out somewhere that is going to draw us in. When one finally hits the fan others are sure to follow. The world is like a bunch of anthills too close together and sooner or later someone is going to get too beligerent and then all of them will be fighting.
I hate to say it but I'm not too optimistic about the future. It's like the 1930's all over again.

 

[jeremy]

If you think it's even remotely comparable, I suggest that you check out the lecture slides available at this website:
Physics 280: Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control

Where did I say comparablely?!
By the way I'm fairly familiar with nuclear capabilities.

Now if you think being able to completely devastate a square kilometer in less than a minute is not impressive with just one conventional weapons system. I don't know what to say. One MLRS will kill everything in a square kilometer. Urban terrain skews that slighty. But, two launchers can overcome the advantage off structures, fairly easily. With conventional munitions only...

 

[NYFelon]

MLRS - Massively Lethal Ridiculous

Yes, I know it actually stands for Multiple Launch Rocket System. But when describing it's capabilities, mine sounds better

 

[Blackhawk2001]

With the global economy, supportive treaties with so many countries and so many countries arguing over resources and real estate (Japan and China, for instance. NK and SK for another) it seems inevitable that sooner or later war is going to break out somewhere that is going to draw us in. When one finally hits the fan others are sure to follow. The world is like a bunch of anthills too close together and sooner or later someone is going to get too beligerent and then all of them will be fighting.
I hate to say it but I'm not too optimistic about the future. It's like the 1930's all over again.

Don't forget population pressures and foreign trade routes; those are traditional causes of wars as well.

 

[jeremy]

MLRS - Massively Lethal Ridiculous

Yes, I know it actually stands for Multiple Launch Rocket System. But when describing it's capabilities, mine sounds better

Not arguing your definition at all....

I have used and cleaned up after them....

I have, I have know way to explain the carnage left behind after they do what they do and do it soooooooo well....

 

[NYFelon]

Not arguing your definition at all....

I have used and cleaned up after them....

I have, I have know way to explain the carnage left behind after they do what they do and do it soooooooo well....

I can only imagine it involves a lot of rubble, scorched earth, and vaguely recognizable pieces that used to be opfor.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Agreed on the very fist post

To keep petroleum under $100 we would have to OCCUPY IRAN, and kill every resistor. What was it that Yamamoto said about invading America? Pay in G.I. blood, for Iranian oil? Noo way. We have oil HERE if we need more. Leave them to their own insane devices, and they'll destroy themselves.

Here's a guy who's actually looking beyond the rhetoric and looking at the reality of what an attack on Iran would entail and do to us. If you think things would be just dandy if we attacked them, maybe a realistic look would change your mind. The entire region would explode and, if you think oil's high now, wait till it's a couple of hundred dollars a barrel. Even our chairman of the Joint Chiefs thinks it's a bad idea, as well as more than a few other military experts. Our economy would crash, given its current fragility and QE3. We need to think long and hard about this and quit listening to the people with no skin in the game.

Why war with Iran would spell disaster

 

[NYFelon]

Coal and nuclear for energy generation/delivery, petroleum for motor fuel/home heating. We'd be self-sufficient for the foreseeable future.

 

[dom1104]

Not arguing your definition at all....

I have used and cleaned up after them....

I have, I have know way to explain the carnage left behind after they do what they do and do it soooooooo well....

Is there anything you havent done? I am starting to think you have lived 3 lifetimes. You are an expert on like everything, been there done that, still got time to post about it on INGO.

Bravo dude, I spend way too much time in front of the TV. Maybe those 400 star trek episodes didnt need to be watched... 4 times.

Seriously, mad props. I have wasted my life.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Is there anything you havent done? I am starting to think you have lived 3 lifetimes. You are an expert on like everything, been there done that, still got time to post about it on INGO.

Bravo dude, I spend way too much time in front of the TV. Maybe those 400 star trek episodes didnt need to be watched... 4 times.

Seriously, mad props. I have wasted my life.

As many times as Guard units have reorganized in the past 20 years, it's unsurprising that some long-serving soldiers have had varied careers. Since 1987 (when I joined the Indiana Guard) the Indiana Guard has gone from a "straight leg" infantry division, to a "heavy mechanized" infantry division, back to "straight leg" infantry with first one, then two more "separate infantry brigade", and finally has undergone the Army-wide transition to "modular brigades". During that time, all sorts of equipment has come and gone away again, to be replaced by other equipment. Units have changed from artillery, to convoy support, and back; engineer units have come and gone, etc.

But, yeah, you probably shouldn't have watched all 400 Star Trek episodes that fourth time. . .

 

[jgreiner]

Here's a guy who's actually looking beyond the rhetoric and looking at the reality of what an attack on Iran would entail and do to us. If you think things would be just dandy if we attacked them, maybe a realistic look would change your mind. The entire region would explode and, if you think oil's high now, wait till it's a couple of hundred dollars a barrel. Even our chairman of the Joint Chiefs thinks it's a bad idea, as well as more than a few other military experts. Our economy would crash, given its current fragility and QE3. We need to think long and hard about this and quit listening to the people with no skin in the game.

Why war with Iran would spell disaster

The heightening standoff with Iran over its nuclear programme, curious in itself for its recent rapid escalation given that leading American and Israeli intelligence estimates have both concluded that Iran has neither developed nor is planning to develop nuclear weapons, is leading to increasingly belligerent rhetoric out of Washington calling for war with Iran.

I stopped reading right there. It's clear after that paragraph, that this moron is a tool. Of COURSE they want the bomb. Their goal is to annihilate Israel, and they need the bomb to do that. The LAT time Arab countries took on Israel, a handful of them got their *sses kicked in just a week.

 

[NYFelon]

You neglect the Yom Kippur War of '73. Or the much more recent Lebanese offensive where they used our war model and were embarrassed to say the least.

 

[rambone]

Is there any part of war with Iran that would NOT be a disaster?

 

[NYFelon]

Less Iranians?