Skip to main content

View Diary: Lindsay Graham says we need to let some Americans Die, so we can Kill People to Save Americans (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There's no Iran War scenario that works. (10+ / 0-)

    The military's been gaming this out for over 30 years, and it fails quickly because

    1. Iran's much bigger than Iraq
    2. Has a much more stable regime with (whether we like how it plays or not) more popular support than popular opposition
    3. The inevitability of damage to nearby countries and, more important to our thinking, their (read: "our") oil
    4. The minor detail that unlike Iraq, Iran can hit back - if they can send a satellite into space they can send a payload to any point on the planet more easily.
    5. The North Korea Example: If they actually have WMDs of any kind we're not going and that includes chemical weapons (and this is why we aren't intervening in Syria, either)
    6. Last but not least: Unlike Iraq, Iran has big powerful friends (see:Russia, China and to an extent even India) who, while not necessarily in a fight-the-USA mood, could make economic life (and therefore the cost of an Iran War) much greater

    •  Agree w/quibbles (8+ / 0-)

      !) Strait or Hormuz. Iran can choke off international shipping with little more than floating IEDs. Regardless of one's position on petroleum, the world operates on it.

      No need to squabble over quibbles as your main point is entirely correct. Attacking Iran causes more problems than it solves and does so by a huge measure.

      •  Yes, floating IEDs and they could even sink (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund, cskendrick, Eric Nelson

        a carrier if that carrier went through the straits as they have supersonic cruise missiles.  In theory the SeaRAM can shoot them down but can it do so with less than 50 seconds of warning which is what they would have when traversing the straits and confined to shipping channels?

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 11:21:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Iran has trained for this scenario with (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, OhioNatureMom

          asymmetrical solutions such as small fast boats that are loaded with explosives and driven by volunteers

        •  That would require a Pearl Harbor scenario (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          In order for Iran to fire on a carrier transiting the SoH that'd have to occur as an opening shot to war. I don't see Iran doing this. If war was already underway Iran sure could prevent carriers from going into or leaving the Gulf that's as certain as can be.

          But war would be so costly to everybody I don't see it happening, not on the current trajectory.

          •  No one on either side wants a war OR a peace (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Too much advantage to both camps in having a rhetorically evil, practically impossible-to-dislodge foe.

            If one counts 'regimes' as camps.

            What the schmoes want does not seem particularly useful information in the meetings that decide such policies.

            •  Oceana has always been at war with Wossname (0+ / 0-)

              No doubt having the Eye-O'Told-Ya and the Great Satan around is exactly what certain American and Iranian factions want.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site