HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » No Way Can US Win A Non-N...

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:22 AM

 

No Way Can US Win A Non-Nuclear War With Iran

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by gkhouston (a host of the General Discussion forum).

When Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking American officer, was asked recently on NBC’s Meet The Press whether the United States has a military plan for an attack on Iran, he replied simply: “We do.”

General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely future contingencies. Right down to the 1930s, for example, the United States maintained and annually updated plans for the invasion of Canada—and the Canadian military made plans to preempt the invasion. But what the planning process will have revealed, in this case, is that there is no way for the United States to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.

The U.S. could “win” by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran’s military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centres (i.e. cities) and killing five to 10 million people, but short of that, nothing works. On this we have the word of Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.

In the early 1990s, Clarke revealed in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton administration had seriously considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.

“After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favourably for the United States,” he said. The Pentagon’s planners have war-gamed an attack on Iran several times in the past 15 years, and they just can’t make it come out as a U.S. victory.


more details -- http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/08/19/no-way-can-us-win-a-non-nuclear-war-with-iran/

11 replies, 3143 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to SixthSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:40 AM

1. an iran war is designed to sell lots of weapons and give $$ to war profiteers nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:06 AM

2. Depends what the objectives are

It would be possible to do limited strikes and bury their nuclear program. Decapitation strikes would be a good idea first. We could not bomb them into capitulation, but back a century or two is well within the possible.

The real issue is that it would cripple their oil exports and really piss off China, who counts on it. Then there is the muslim reaction.

Yes we could really hurt them, but no, we won't do it unless a lot of other nations join in.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:33 AM

3. if "win" is defined as gaining more than you lose

 

then I don't think there is any "win" possible in any military scenario against Iran

even if we can best them militarily, the combined consequences of doing so would be worse than anything we could gain out of it

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 05:52 AM

4. Goes back to your objectives

Is keeping Iran out of the nuclear club enough?
Can you hurt them enough so that they quit sending arms to Hamas and the like
Can you decapitate the current regime and keep the Straits of Hormuz open?

With the exception of the first one, hard to see a real benefit for the US or the world.

Again, it all depends on the scenario and objectives. On a pragmatic level, its a dumb thing to do.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:44 AM

7. Keeping open the Straits of Hormuz is the most important thing...

With the current state of the world economy, the supply shock of a closed shipping channel like Hormuz would be tough to overcome. I think the Iranians already have enough fissionable material for a bomb.
If the mission is to keep the straits open-it is doable and worth it. We already lost the ability to keep them out of the MAD club. Containment will be the key there. That cannot be done unilaterally.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:17 AM

5. Here's a better option...

Let the fucking Iraqis and Israelis deal with the problem. They have collectively sucked as much off the American Teat as the Saudis...who by the way should also be leading the charge against the Persians!

We have absolutely no need to go to war again over there!!!

Christ crucified....we JUST left fucking Iraq....we are STILL in Afghanistan up to our eyes...no more goddamn it, or maybe we WILL have to have riots and deaths in the streets of America to make this clear to the powers that be...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:21 AM

6. Mullen was not implying a nuclear attack on Iran.

That would be insane.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:47 AM

8. Sure we can...it will be a cakewalk, as someone once said

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:56 AM

9. Of coure it's true. Of course (as you point out) there is no "winning"

 

any kind of nuclear war. First-use of nuclear weapons wouldn't be a war, it would be history's worst war crime and a step toward species extinction.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:04 AM

10. From the folks who predict the end of the world, 12/21/12 ...



"There are prophecies and oracles from around the world that all seem to point to December 21, 2012 as New World Age ( World is not going to end but millions of people could die in the process of New Age Transition). The ancient Mayan Calendar, the medieval predictions of Merlin, the Book of Revelation and the Chinese oracle of the I Ching all point to this specific date as the end of civilization. A new technology called “The Web-Bot Project” makes massive scans of the internet as a means of forecasting the future… and has turned up the same dreaded date: 2012. Skeptics point to a long history of “Failed Doomsdays”, but many oracles of doom throughout history have a disturbingly accurate track record.

Prophesies from many traditions from all over the world over speak of a great transformative shift that is happening in the years around 2012. The Mayan calendar comes to a close on December 21st 2012. The Q’ero Shamans of Peru speak of this same timeframe in their prophecy called Pacha Kuti which is the time in which they say that the luminous ones will return and the world will be turned right side up again. The Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Cherokee, Maori, Jews, Christians and many others have ancient prophesies that speak to the nature of this very crucial and amazing moment in time. We are documenting much of this traditional knowledge and more in this research project."

http://www.pakalertpress.com/about/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SixthSense (Original post)

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:10 AM

11. Considering the source, I'm going to lock this as "Creative Speculation".

I don't doubt we can ill afford another war with anyone, but a year-old article from pakalertpress...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink