We *could* turn Iran into a sheet of shiney green glass and be done with it too...

And whom decided that the USA was to be the worlds police?

maybe a 4th option.

a coordinated air campaign against our actual Iranian enemies - the IRG & their mad mullah commanders rather than the nuke facilities.

in other words, chop-off the head of the snake.

this may open the door for the persian youth to revolt & after they seize control, we probably could negoiate a south african style, nuclear decommissioning.

or, at the very least, the resulting anarchy would create opportunities to negatively effect the enrichment programme.

just thinking outta the box.

viva la revolution!

Mark, as one former sailor to another, I have to agree -- nothing projects power better than a formidable naval force. I don't know whether the Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri or Wisconsin could be brought out of mothballs yet again or whether they are all permanently retired, but NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING is more intimidating that staring down the 16" barrels of an Iowa Class battleship. These 4 ships were, without a doubt, the greatest instruments of power projection created in my lifetime, and over the course of half a century, they proved it again and again.

I think even a few of our resident Libs might agree with you on this one.

One more picture just to add an exclamation point to the previous post.

GO NAVY!

or what about this: we give them a few warheads and say "draw"!

or better yet - the Iraqi insurgency seems to be effictively keeping a viable Iraqi government from getting on its feet. we could offer the Iraqi insurgents a deal: they could train our military in insurgency methods and we could infiltrate Iran as insurgents! i bet that would work much better than "projections of power".

And whom decided that the USA was to be the worlds police?

Paul, first of all, take a course in English grammar. Second, if not us, who? If not now, when? Are you hoping that, if Iran produces nukes, they'll use them on Israel or on a European city instead of an American city? A more likely scenario is that they'll give them to al Qaeda or some other terrorists group. Does that make you feel safer? Sticking your head in the sand isn't even an option. Well, maybe for you it is, but all that means is that, instead of getting your head blown off, you're going to lose the other end of you anatomy.

Why is there even a debate? We have a mad man in charge of WMD whom has treaten his neighbors, and has thumbed his nose at the UN.

The military is ready (according to Rummy) and the oil revenue will pay for reconstruction.

No, we can't do any of what has been mentioned...Iran WILL retaliate by nuking Israel. We have to do whatever we can to change the current leader of Iran...and I mean whatever we can!

Spook, I am a former vietnam sailor and wandered over from your link about the USS Iowa, and then saw her in the google satellite view, she is still very impressive, and looks to be in pretty darn good shape. But that picture showing The USS Iowa fires a full broadside of 16 in (406 mm) guns. is just amazing.

Spook,

Nothing quite as impressive - but I'll bet it'd take at least some months to get them sea-worthy...of course, for the out-years we can build new battleships...I envision that as a ship with 6 18-inch guns and all the missle launchers you can imagine...it'd be a BBG, as it were.

Good thinkin' guys!
It's all so simple, it's a wonder that Bush and Rummy didn't already think of it.
We'll just commit a blatant act of war (or three) against yet a another country that hasn't attacked us -- that'll teach them to mess with the USA! It is also sure to enhance our standing among the rest of the civilized world.
Here's a question for Mark: What if those Iranians don't "captiulate" in a month or two? What if we run out of oil reserves before they run out of hatred for the US? What if US attacks on their economy do cause the Iranian people to rally around the Mullahs? Just look how fired up our own religious fanatics get about any and all military adventures. I guess you must have learned all about blockades in the Navy -- or was it from all that history that you read?
And hey, Spook.
Impressive though a BB's broadside may be, there are a number of reasons they're all on their way to becoming floating museums or razor blades. One of those is the existence of numerous sea-skimming ASGM that just about everybody has these days (and considerably outrange a 16-inch gun -- even with RAP) and, by the by, Tehran is well out of range. Hard to say what Iran has for sure anymore, but I'd bet that there would be no shortage of folks willing to donate a missile or two if it meant foiling a blockade of 10 percent of the world's oil supply.
If, however, we could get a BB ready in a short time to sit off the coast and trade shots with shore batteries -- I do hope that you two will follow TR's advice regarding talking the jingoist line and quickly reenlist so you can personally go toe-to-toe with them Persian heathens.
P.s. They'll probably make Mark a Grand Admiral based on his brilliant strategic insights!

that picture showing The USS Iowa fires a full broadside of 16 in (406 mm) guns. is just amazing.

That's the understatement of the year, dl.

Mark, the text that accompanies the picture of the Iowa broadside does discuss the possibility of having 1 or 2 BB's available for recall until as late as 2008, but it doesn't mention any time frame for making them ready for duty. I like your idea of a BBG. Any idea if that is even on the drawing board?

I doubt that the youngsters today comprehend the concept of "projection of power" that the Iowa Class epitomizes. It's like a bounty hunter armed with a .50 caliber hand gun. He likely doesn't even have to fire a shot -- just hand his quarry a clean pair of underwear before cuffing him.

I agree with the prospect of flexing our naval muscle on this, but in order to do that, we have to step up the production of battle-ready sea-faring vessels.

Naval production, with the advent of desert warfare, has somewhat fallen by the wayside in recent years. It has been projected that if we don't step up production soon, China may have more battle-ready ships in the coming decades, and that is definately something that we don't want.

While we are stepping up our production, I propose a large scale, coordinated, bombardment, both airial and naval, of both Iranian military infrastructure and its nuclear facilities. Such a blow, while minimizing civilian casualties, will strike a crippling blow on both Iran's nuclear research and its ability to make war.

The best part of our plan is that it does not over stretch our ground forces, which, coincidentally enough, a recent Pentagon-sanctioned report recently stated that they were already somewhat over-streched by the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Give the Army and Marines a break, let the Navy and Airforce use their big guns (and missiles).

The US should reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran and then leave Iraq. Peace

Ganted the Battlewagons look and sound impressives but...

We have the capability to project more power, more precisely, and more cost effectively with the Carrier Battle Group that is currently on station in the Persian Gulf.

In addtion the range of the battleship's 9 16 inch guns is limite to 23 miles. The Battleships can also fire cruise missles with a range of 500 miles, but then so can the Aegis cruisers already on station. In comparison the 60 planes per carrier can each deliver 3 to 5 tons of bombs in excess of 1000 miles (without refueling).

phnxbmed
Former Naval Aviator

This doesn't even account for the Air Force squadrons...but then again we generally discount them anyway...just kidding.

Whoa, Frawg, there's hope for you yet.

USS Iowa presence near (within range) of the middle east, is a very sobering thought... and those bombers that leave Kirkland afb in Missouri to pound those nuke sites, should prevent any nuclear progress for Iran.

Gore ran, Kerry ran, Saddam ran, and now Iran gets the runs.. like in runs/trots... priceless

you realize your talking about an area of land that hasn't been occupied since Alexander the Great. As we learned in Vitenam, and are learning all over again in Iraq, technology can only go so far in war.

Has anyone looked into what's next in navy ships?

The Navy is currently designing a new destroyer that will be less expensive to maintain and requires a much smaller crew. Wikipedia has a great article on it, and it really show the excitement of what is to come, especially with regards to the DD(X) destroyer and the rail gun, which "the US Navy plans to deploy railguns with ranges over 250 miles on naval vessels as early as 2011.(1)"

There are definately great things to come when it comes to the navy.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD%28X%29)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun)

The Iranians don't even have to fire a shot if attacked. All they have to do is turn off the spigot and all you tough guys (ha) will be crying in your Coors over the cost to fill up your cars. Cowards.......the recruitment office is still in the same place....

or what about this: we give them a few warheads and say "draw"!

Andy, are you challenging Iraq to a duel, or are you blaming us for having a nuclear deterrent? I'll reserve judgment until you respond, but I suspect you're a kook, apologist lib.

Why is there even a debate? We have a mad man in charge of WMD whom has treaten his neighbors, and has thumbed his nose at the UN.

The military is ready (according to Rummy) and the oil revenue will pay for reconstruction.

Hey barney, what the heck is "treaten?" As for your TP comment, get over 2000, fool. I listened to the Secretary of the Army on Rush today, and our military is ready, fool. Of course, the Secretary of the Army is just another Bush liar, right, fool? You kooks need to turn the page on your rhetoric; you're preaching to the choir, fool...

Paul, first of all, take a course in English grammar.

Sorry, my bad! (thats American isn't it?)

Second, if not us, who?

Mayby a country that does not have a vested interest? Mayby a country that is not looking for strategic gains in resources and military bases in the middle east? A country like East Timor backed by a UN Multinational Peace Keeping force. Or possibly New Zealand? They are two small countries you may or may not have read about in your schooling.

Are you hoping that, if Iran produces nukes, they'll use them on Israel or on a European city instead of an American city?

No, definately an American City.

No one is going to start throwing Nukes around except for the one country that has already done so. People have seen the consequences. Why do you think the Russians did not start chucking them around during the cold war. Beacuse they do a little bit of damage. Countries like Iran want nukes as a deterant from American Imperialist agendas such as what has happened in Iraq.

OOOh! look! WMD's!!! er.. er.. hang on, he was a bad man!

Go on, try and deny that the Iraq occupation was not fought on false pretences.

A more likely scenario is that they'll give them to al Qaeda or some other terrorists group. Does that make you feel safer?

I will feel a lot safer if the House of Bush and the American Empire came to an end. The problems in the world today are caused by America sticking it's nose in really where it is not wanted.

Sticking your head in the sand isn't even an option. Well, maybe for you it is, but all that means is that, instead of getting your head blown off, you're going to lose the other end of you anatomy.

My feet? Your a funny bloke retired spook. How on earth did you get into the intelligence comminuty? My country is not the strongest in the world, so we have done (well our pollies anyway) is what any other country has done to a more powerful ally. We stick our tounges in little holes and start licking furiously. The actions of that are we are now a so called 'terrorist' target.

You people do not realise that terrorism was created and manafactured by the US government.

What better enemy than terrorism. An enemy that will never be found, never be defeated and a war that will never be won. Much better than that old cold war stuff. So now we can keep the population under control and in a constant state of fear.

The scary thing is the parralells between Nazi Germany and USA of today. The Germans did not jump up and down and call thier leader a bit of a tosspot either or question his policies. If they did, there own version of the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security would surely come after them.

One question for you Retired Spook, how did the Nazi's come to have such sweeping power?

"We should concentrate our naval and air forces around Iran and issue an ultimatum - dismantle your nuclear facilities under American supervision, or suffer a complete blockade."-Mark

Mark, how would you guarantee the safety of those American supervisors? Once the supervisors enter Iran, they risk becoming hostages. Iran could blackmail the US again saying, "Stop the blockade or we'll kill the American supervisors."

Has everyone forgotten about North Korea. Why weren't you all in a uproar when that crazy man got himself some nukes? The government just sat back and let it happen because we're afraid of provoking China. And gues what? China needs Iran oil for their economy, which by the way is kicking the US economies ass right now. We only jumped down on Iraq because they had no friends, but it will not be the same with Iran. We don't have the manpower for an invasion and if we start a draft that will be it for the neo-con agenda. No amount of propaganda would sell that to the American people. And since we are so worried about Muslims with Nukes what about Pakistan, which by the way has more Al-Queda than Iran or Iraq. Pakistan already has the Nukes, and has sold their secrets to Iran, why don't we crack their heads? By the way, where's Osama? Oh yeah, our president just doesn't spend that much time worrying about him.

Poll: 57% of Americans Support Military Action in Iran

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
Published: January 27 2006 15:22 | Last updated: January 27 2006 15:22
(via FT.com)

WASHINGTON — Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran’s Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

"We *could* turn Iran into a sheet of shiney green glass and be done with it too..."

Ah, TexFred, the ole Shock and Awe strategy. It worked so well in Iraq!

There are definately great things to come when it comes to the navy.

You can say that again, Frawg. The DD(X) sounds awsome, and I found this info about railguns fascinating:

However the main advantage for naval forces is range; the US Navy plans to deploy railguns with ranges over 250 miles on naval vessels as early as 2011 (emphasis - mine)

Paul, you're one sick dude. You better double up on your meds tonight.

Retired Spook,

I responded with a well written piece. You responded to my post by name calling.

People wonder why America is despised so much around the world. You sir, unfortunately, are the example.

"The military is ready (according to Rummy) and the oil revenue will pay for reconstruction."

Barneyg2000: That's what they said about Iraq.
250b tax dollars later and still paying.

So, Paul, Mike, General Mukmar and the rest of you arguing against stopping the Iranian nuke program, what do you suggest instead?

Because I've just sent a resolute man to kill you and your families. You won't be able to reason with him because he has only a mercenary interest in killing you and yours. You've declared you want nothing done to stop him. How do you save your families?

Salvelinus,

Both, but mostly from history books.

If Iran doesn't capitulate then we'll have to attack them - it is absolutely certain that Iran under the mullahs may not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Period. End of story.

Paul,

Your writing is fine, but your ideas are entirely divorced from reality.

Because I've just sent a resolute man to kill you and your families. You won't be able to reason with him because he has only a mercenary interest in killing you and yours. You've declared you want nothing done to stop him. How do you save your families?

*looks* *blinks* *shakes head in bewilderment* Mate. I can just as easily be knocked down by a car tomorrow. My wife or one of tmy three children can also be mowed down.

I could be attacked by a junkie looking for the money for his next fix.

I could be savaged by a dog. Bitten by a snake. Stung by a bee.

If by somechance someone has sent someone to kill me. There is nothing that either you nor I could really do about it. If you do not know it is going to happen then how can you stop it?

Also, how would you stop it? Cutting off your arm on the off chance you get a melanoma?

You are saying that :-

a. The US should declare a war on yet another country that has not formally begun hostilities towards the US.

b. Stick your collective noses in other peoples affairs once more.

c. Play hypocrit again and again over nuclear weapons. 'Nukes are baad mmmkay! But its ok for us to have them.'

d. Gain more strategic advantage for the American Empire in the middle east by the use of a puppet government.

I can go on and on if you really want me to. But I really think you do get the point.

I honestly do not fear Iran gaining nuclear weapons. They will never use them offensively. Remember theri government is also run by the elites just like anyone elses. That's why there has never yet been a nuclear war between two nuclear powers.....the elites and their families will die.

I can't think of a better weapon of peace than a thermonuclear bomb.

Your writing is fine, but your ideas are entirely divorced from reality.

As opposed to the 'Yeehaww! Lets go kill us some ragheads' Mentality that seems prevelant here.

How many of you know that the US administration funded Iraqs WMD's to fight Iran.

That Donald Rummy actually met with Saddam in the 80's.

A guardian report on the meetings Here

Small video of the handshake. Thats a little animated gif, I'm sure if your all as intelligent as you claim to be you should not have too much trouble finding a decent video of it.

If those ideas above are divorced from reality after I have given you some proof. What of my other ideas?

Because I've just sent a resolute man to kill you and your families. You won't be able to reason with him because he has only a mercenary interest in killing you and yours. You've declared you want nothing done to stop him. How do you save your families?

Posted by: YFS at January 28, 2006 03:54 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh????????.....Ask a stupid question .....get a st.....BTW...has anyone here(warlovers)...heard the latest from the Chinese military.......In a press conference (covered by Asian and European press not ours)...a Chinese general (head of their version on Joint Chiefs of Staff)...said that china is prepared to destroy 200 American cities if thier assets in Iran is compromised....sounds like a threat to me .....any advocates for war with China??....tough talkers....An empty barrel makes the most noise.....

Paul,

We disposed of that myth a couple years ago...Brazil provided more military hardware to Saddam and the US and UK combined...you can keep your paranoid conspiracy theories, we know better.

scalpmed,

But we've never had people who think that God commands them to destroy the infidels in possession of a nuclear weapon.

It is a risk we dare not take.

"I honestly do not fear Iran gaining nuclear weapons. They will never use them offensively. Remember theri government is also run by the elites just like anyone elses. That's why there has never yet been a nuclear war between two nuclear powers.....the elites and their families will die."...scalpmed

This wins the prize as the most patently naive post on this subject. I seriously doubt that Iran has the ability to overtly deliver a nuclear weapon to US soil via a missle fired from their territory. However there is no doubt that there are enough looneys in power there to deliver such a weapon to Al Queda or some other wacko suicidal group who wishes death to America, so that they could do the job. Why do this directly when you could deny involvment?

"Chinese general (head of their version on Joint Chiefs of Staff)...said that china is prepared to destroy 200 American cities if thier assets in Iran is compromised....sounds like a threat to me"...General Mukmar

This wins the prize as the most laughable post on this subject. If true this was said for the benefit of good Sino-Iranian relations. The Chinese are pragmatists and they wouldn't sacrifice there country for their "assets in Iran"

What a joke. Remember what happened to their embassy in Belgrade??? If you think this was an accident you are more of an idiot that you appear by your post. It was a message.

What did they do???

Zip Zero Nada.

Mark,

If you even took the time to read those reports, you will find that it never mentions building up Iraqs weapons, but giving Iraq Intelligence and turning a blind eye to chemical weapons (WMD's) used in the Iraq-Iran war. Why? Because Iran was an enemy.

The point I am trying to make is, as you proved it further up by saying that (paraphrased) 'We know about this already because we know Brazil supplied most military hardware'.

How can you keep your heads in the sand when you have proof of US doubledealing. Most Americans crap on about how good, honest and free your country is but when it is shown to you that it's not all that pure, you look away , ignore and turn the other cheek.

It is precisely these reasons why America is despised so much. Us Australians know our pollies do this and we hate them just as much as the US administration. You will never see us writing Blogs for Johhny websites as we are much to cynical of politicions to do that.

You have an evil, stupid and a megalmoaniac man in power and you can not even see it. Do you never read Al-jazeera just to get a different perspective from the US propoganda that is churned out by your media?

We are lucky in some sence as we get both the US propoganda and media from other parts of the world. We can see the evil taking place. Where as your eyes are closed.

You also claimed it was paranoid conspiracy theory. yet again, you proved that it was not. I did not go on to say that Saddam was conspiring with the US administrastion to keep aliens secret or anything of the like. I merely pointed out well known fact and a parrallel that I see to Nazi Germany. No conspiracy theory there.

Perhaps an education may be needed for you young man, reading and comprehending being first I think.

So , does everyone here actually believe this is about Iran's nuclear program, and not about Iran switching their oil currency to Euros from the U.S. dollar in March ? Folks , the U.S. is about to go bankrupt thanks to Sheriff Bush , and the only answers they have left are military .

P,

I have read the reports - and if you had read my post, you'd see that I didn't say that Brazil provided most of Saddam's military hardware, but that it did provide more than the US and UK combined...Saddam got about half his hardware from Russia, about a third from France...and Saddam's WMD's were almost all Russian, and those bits not Russian were French and German when not home-grown.

The concept that Saddam's Stalinist, Soviet-client regime was implanted or sustained by the United States is not only false, but laughably false for anyone over the age of 30. At 41, I can REMEMBER what was going on, so don't try to sell my your conspiracy theories...I know Saddam has always been an enemy of the United States from personal experience back in the 1980's...

War! Good God y'all, What is it good for?
Pissin' off liberals, oh yeah!

War, hmmm, yeah, what is is good for?
Exposing kook moonbats, yeah, yeah!!!

...and the only answers they have left are military.

And let us not forget, iraqoncilable, monitoring YOUR phone calls, and your kookbat posts to GOP blogs. Beware, kookbat, they're watching you; they're coming to get you, in their black helicopter. Hide your tin-foil hat, and run, kookbat, run. hahahaha!!!

Dearest Mark,

At 32 I can also remember. I also remember in 1990 the then Secretary of State at the time, Madeline Albright (sp?) whom at press conference from after a popwow between Iraq and Kuwait and wether or not Iraq should annex kuwait, I remember her clearly saying that 'This is a regional issue and the US will not get involved'.

Hmmm Who was the first country to jump up and down?

I am not trying to sell you conspiracy theories. I have shown you news reports form reputable papers. You have just laughed nervously and attempt to deflect from the issue at hand. You offor no counter aguments or even proof.

You obviously never even read this part of the report from The Guardian where it said A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.
Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare."

Anthrax? Commerce Department? Sounds to me that someone in the government knew what was going on.

But you still deny it. I know George Dubya is your main man, infact I admire your loyalty, but when are you people going to face facts.

If the majority of the worlds population with access to the media can see how much of a danger Dubya is then mayby, just mayby, there may be something to worry about.

Start reading media from other parts of the world instead of the heavy propoganda that you see in the US on CNN and Fox news expecially.

Keefer (or is it Reefer ?) :
First of all, who said I was a liberal ? Second , what elementary school were you expelled from ? Third , the point I'm making is that the U.S. is at a financial crossroads and it's DOCUMENTED that Iran wants to switch it's oil to Euros in March . This could push the American economy over the edge , cause a market crash, a housing crash , a run on the banks , lost pensions, etc., etc. Thus it's reasonable to assume that the U.S. wouldn't want this to happen but seem to only believe in the military option , which besides the collateral damage would over-extend the treasury and cause a crash anyway. So if Keefer speaks for everyone else on this site, then you go, girls. But if I'm wrong, then maybe someone could explain it to me without all the bovine scatology .

what an idiot, thank god 2006 you'll see a big change in congress and in 2008 you'll see a change in the presidency. its to bad as i used to be a republican, but i don't know this republican party. i believe george bush's regime is the beginning of the down fall of the usa. he is the worst prsident in my life time and i'm 57 years old. what a pity for the republican party.