Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

Maybe I'm just crabby tonight, but there seems to be a contradiction here (because I do agree with the first part):

"America has to stop these continuous, long-term foreign military adventures... If military force is needed to prevent Iran from attacking Israel or any of its neighbours with nuclear weapons it should be done with the airforce. Simply bomb the sh-t out of the nuclear facilities and the launch pads. Using our airforce completely destroy Iran's will to make war...".

Here are some good points David Frum made: "Here are some of the questions that military planners would have to consider: Do we know the location of all Iranian nuclear facilities? How much bombing will it require to destroy all important sites? If sites are underground and hardened by concrete, will the bombers have to keep pounding for two, three or more days? What kind of civilian casualties should we expect?

Iran has all kinds of capacity to retaliate: firing missiles at oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, for example, or launching terror strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and possibly even the Caribbean, with assets pre-positioned in Venezuela, Iran�s new Western Hemisphere ally. Should the strike target those capacities in advance? Should air strikes target Iranian naval and military bases as well as nuclear facilities?

More seriously: Can air power alone deal with the potential for Iranian retaliation? Or will naval and ground forces have to be deployed too?

And if the West does strike Iranian ground forces, will air power alone do the job? Remember that NATO fought an air war against Serbia in 1999."

http://www.frumforum.com/obamas-do-nothing-iran-policy

I don't agree with a lot in the article, but the part I quoted above is spot on.

[Reggie]

[Reggie]

[mises]

[Reggie]