Iran test fires missile capable of reaching US bases or Israel

[Martinus]

Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.

How do you propose to stop Iran?

He already said how, strike their infrastructure.

That's not "how". That's an objective. You may just as well propose "beat Iran in a war" as a solution.

[Faeelin]

I am not sure if the global economy can handle shutting down the straits during the ensuing War, and I am not sure how much influence Iran still has in Basra.  If neither of these are likely to pose problems, then sure, let us attack Iran in the hopes of stalling for time.

Translation: We don't have the balls to do anything.

Pretty much, yes. Or do you think my statements were wrong?

[jimmy olsen]

Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.

How do you propose to stop Iran?

He already said how, strike their infrastructure.

That's not "how". That's an objective. You may just as well propose "beat Iran in a war" as a solution.

Do you want an order of battle and a target list?

[Valmy]

Last time I checked it wasn't the Iranians setting up colonies in foreign countries to pacify ultra-right religious fanatics who think they have a right to another country's land.   

Your idiocy removes your right to get upset with the Nation of Islam.

[Admiral Yi]

That's not "how". That's an objective. You may just as well propose "beat Iran in a war" as a solution.

Fuck up their infrastructure is an objective.  Strike it is how.

[Ed Anger]

Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.

How do you propose to stop Iran?

He already said how, strike their infrastructure.

That's not "how". That's an objective. You may just as well propose "beat Iran in a war" as a solution.

With death rays.

[Neil]

That's not "how". That's an objective. You may just as well propose "beat Iran in a war" as a solution.

Fuck up their infrastructure is an objective.  Strike it is how.

Not necessarily.  What are you trying to accomplish by fucking up their infrastructure.  At an operational level, fucking up their infrastructure might be an objective, but it could never be a strategic objective.  It is at a strategic level that leaders must think.

[Queequeg]

Do you want an order of battle and a target list?

Our military is stretched pretty thin as is, and if the last 10 years (Lebanon, Afghanistan, arguably Iraq) it is that air strikes don't win wars alone. 

I don't think a full scale war with Iran is a smart move at this point, and I think the true can be said from the Iranian perspective, as their economy would collapse pretty quickly without oil exports.  We can talk about balls and air strikes all we want, but this is far more suited to an internet forum than a battle field in Iran.

Probably the best argument to have is on the rationality of Iranian leadership, which is a very, very important argument to have.  A full scale war would be retarded.

[Admiral Yi]

fucking up their infrastructure might be an objective

[Darth Wagtaros]

Iran becoming nuclear, which is probably inevitable given the current lack of balls in the west to do *anything* about it, is going to be a disaster.

How do you propose to stop Iran?

He already said how, strike their infrastructure.

I am not sure if the global economy can handle shutting down the straits during the ensuing War, and I am not sure how much influence Iran still has in Basra.  If neither of these are likely to pose problems, then sure, let us attack Iran in the hopes of stalling for time.

Well, obviously you'd have to strike their military first to prevent them from having such capability.

Really?  That would work?  Wouldn't a preventative strike just make every other nutball want nukes that much faster?  Once you have them and can delier them or give them to the crazies you are kind of immune to attacks eh?

[jimmy olsen]

Do you want an order of battle and a target list?

Our military is stretched pretty thin as is, and if the last 10 years (Lebanon, Afghanistan, arguably Iraq) it is that air strikes don't win wars alone. 

Depends on what the aim of the war is. If the aim is to destroy a targets capability to make nukes or cripple their economy, I think air power could do that.

[Berkut]

Do you want an order of battle and a target list?

Our military is stretched pretty thin as is, and if the last 10 years (Lebanon, Afghanistan, arguably Iraq) it is that air strikes don't win wars alone. 

Who said anything about winning a war?

Is someone trying to make the argument that the West (the US in particular) could not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon through massive airpower applied against both their nuclear program *and* their political and economic infrastructure?

You can argue that perhaps it would not be worth it - a nuclear Iran is a better option than an Iran demolished by concentrated airstrikes at their economy and such. You can argue that the amount of damage this would inflict on Iran would be immoral.

I don't think you can argue that it would not work though. Of course it would. We could destroy their national economy and make them a lot more worried about how to keep the lights on than building nukes.

IMO, we don't even have to actually do it - we just have to be willing to do it if necessary, and Iran would back down. Of course, they know that we would never actually do this, so an empty threat is the worst possible thing to do, so it doesn't really matter. But that is my point - this is a lack of will, not a lack of capability.

[Berkut]

Really?  That would work?  Wouldn't a preventative strike just make every other nutball want nukes that much faster?  Once you have them and can delier them or give them to the crazies you are kind of immune to attacks eh?

I can't think of any way to prevent nutballs from wanting nukes. Can you?

[Queequeg]

Your idiocy removes your right to get upset with the Nation of Islam.

Both the Iranian and Israeli governments are far more religion based than the modern norm (by itself, not an evil by most means).  The big difference is that Israel is far more civilized and downplays irrational things like the Palestinian settlements, while Iran hangs gay teenagers and talks about nuking sovereign nations while acting mostly rationally. 

Obviously the Israeli government is superior, but I don't think we are dealing with polar opposites here.  Give Siegebreaker a beard and an Iranian passport and he wouldn't be that much different in the Revolutionary Guard.

[Queequeg]

Is someone trying to make the argument that the West (the US in particular) could not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon through massive airpower applied against both their nuclear program *and* their political and economic infrastructure?

In so doing we would demolish most of the Middle East.  Insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq would spiral out of control as would Shi'ite minorities throughout the greater Middle East, from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. 

Videos of thousands of dead Iranian civilians would be everywhere, the Twelver cult of Martyrdom would go nuts, etc....

You are looking at this as an isolated incident.  A prolonged bombing campaign against Iran wouldn't be.  That's an impossibility.  The western will to fight relatively unsupported insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq is waning thin as is, imagine if Iran put all their remaining manpower and weapons behind undermining our efforts in the Middle East?