Dean: U.S. Too Weak to Hit Iran

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Six months, no boots on the ground at all, we can destroy their nuclear program, virtually destroy their military mobility, and open up the perfect opportunity for the Iranian people to rise up if that is their will.

Nonsense.

We would have to double our troop levels in both Iraq and Afghanistan, simply to overcompensate for the increased threat. We would certainly win any major war with Iran, but any battle plan that doesn't involve boots on the ground is utter and complete nonsense.

Besides over a 100 ZSU 23 anti aircraft batteries, the Iranians also have caches of IGLA shoulder mounted surface to air missiles. Numbers easily reaching the thousands, with the possability of more being smuggled through Turkmenistan, given the increased levels of threat. The IGLA significantly increases the threat to our Warthog tank killers, which fly under the 4,500 feet range limit. They can't touch long range bombers, but they can hit Apache and Chinooks.

But, that's not your worst case scenario.

Your worst case scenario is that these disappear from their armories and suddenly appear in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Detroit.

You're also assuming that the Iranian people COULD and WOULD stand up to the mullahs, which is just the type of fallacy that landed us in the jackpot in Iraq. The moderates would have to accomplish something they've been unable to do for the last 25 years, and that's stand up to the Right Wingers. The moderates are sitting this one out, all over the place.

Iran has 540,000 troops, with another 300,000 in reserve. They have 1,600 battle tanks. 1,500 armored vehicles. They have 3,200 artillary pieces. 306 fighter planes. 50 attack helicopters. They have 3 submarines.
They have 130 rockets with a range of over 150 miles, and possibly four Shahab 4 rockets, with a range of over 800 miles.

It's impossible to contain absolutely everything within the first hours of the attack, and that most certainly means American collateral damage in other Persion Gulf regions. And while most of Irania equipment is antiquated Russian junk, your other worst case scenario involves 100,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen spilling across the borders into Afghanistan and Iraq.

Regardless, unless your fully prepared to invade and secure biological weapons facilities with boots on the ground, then any battle plans will ultimately result in utter and complete disaster.

In conclusion. Bombing the nuclear reactor sites would be EASY. Bombing the cities into utter and complete desolation would also be very easy. But, unless you also occupy the country, and secure chaches of arms and biological weapons, then your net result is the destabilzation of an entire region already falling apart.

And that's one of the most nightmarish scenerios that I can possibly think of.

Originally posted by The Vagabond



1. Keeping nuclear weapons away from potential aggressors in the Middle East. This can be resolved from the air, with a relatively low number of sortees even.

First of all thanks for taking the time to answer the questions. However your plan is at best a short term soulation.
Once the Bombing stops what is the first thing the government of Iran will rebuild ?
There nuclear program!

3. Eliminating the Iranian militaries ability to manuever against neighboring countries, especially Iraq, as well as it's ability to respond with full effectiveness against a prospective uprising. It need not be entirely destroyed, only deprived of mobility by the targeting of aircraft, fuel storage, and the vehicles of key units. This can be accomplished by extensive bombing.

Once the bombing ends Iran will look to rebuild its military to face the next bout of American air power.

That would be ideal, but is not even really necessary. Truth be told, it is of little matter to us whether or not Iran remains a theocracy, or even a haven for terrorists. Reducing the strategic threat posed by Iran, as well as increasing our ability to carry out small scale operations against terrorists in Iran can be accomplished strictly from the air. If Iraq has proven anything it is that a half-hearted occupation of less then 300,000 troops doesn't do as muc as we would like for exterminating terrorists. So why put them there at all, when simply weakening them would allow us to make special forces incursions or airstrikes on targets as they appear, without putting a large force in country to be sniped at?

While I agree that any occupation cant be done half heartly your plan has a number of flaws.
1 The government of Iran will have learnt from gulf war 1 and will take measures to prevent mass desertions.
2 An occupation is needed in order to bring stablity to Iran .
3 Without a regime change the same people will be in power.
In the long term do you think Iran will give up its nuclear program?
4 You cant even be sure that Iran will even put its nuclear program on hold despite the bombings. Iran could store nuclear material and equipment away from prying eyes.
5 When the US faces the same problem in 10 years because it didnt the job first time around what course of action should be taken?
6 You say there might be a regime change led by a bunch of soilders.
Just who are these soliders?
Wont airpower destory the means of overthrowing the regimes?

We have had 50 years of half hearted wars and politicans overiding military sense . It appears that we have finally seen an end to limted wars and your putting foward the concept that has failed time and time again.

At best your plan stalls Iran nuclear program at worst its a waste of American tax payer dollars that fails to stop Irans nuclear program and increases anti American sentiment in the region. Although to be fair an occupation wouldnt be to popular either.

Originally posted by brimstone735
We would have to double our troop levels in both Iraq and Afghanistan, simply to overcompensate for the increased threat.

I respectfully disagree. Considering the geography of the region and Iran's logistical and fire support capabilities, they have no chance of successfully invading Iraq if the US initiates the war by redeploying current forces along the Tigris, especially in the South, and moves in an additional armored division and a large number of aircraft. By the time the Iranians could pull together a coherent offensive we'd be ready for them, they'd lose most of their fire support early on, and they'd be sitting ducks for raids by American armor as they repeatedly failed to cross the Tigris under American artillery fire. Most of the fighting would take place in Basrah, but due to our need to concentrate force in Basrah their best chance at victory will actually be either in Al Kut or Ba'qubah, in a two pronged attack on Baghdad. Their success there will be entirely contingent on their ability to 1. Get armor through the Zagros range without being suffering heavy casualties from American aircraft. 2. Match guts with US Marines in urban combat. Not a promising scenario for them.
Within 3 weeks of their initial moves they'll be in full retreat (if they can) and the Highway of Death out of Kuwait will look like a cake walk compared to what we do to them then. Our casualties will be in the thousands, there's will be in the high tens of thousands, and they will be at our mercy, which they are likely to find considerably lacking.

We would certainly win any major war with Iran, but any battle plan that doesn't involve boots on the ground is utter and complete nonsense.

For a typical invasion yes, but not to simply reduce their air, naval, nuclear, and key logistical capabilities. We have the boots on the ground for defense, and will need to offer them reinforcements who have the proper equipment, but entering and occupying Iranian territory is patently unnecessary.

Besides over a 100 ZSU 23 anti aircraft batteries, the Iranians also have caches of IGLA shoulder mounted surface to air missiles.

Have you noticed how everybody we beat the snot out of claims to have the most amazing anti-aircraft capabilities? Here's a little G-2 on the "Zeus" anti aircraft cannons- they're only dangerous when they aren't pointed at the sky. If they aren't being sold at fireworks stands in Tiajuana, they certainly should be, because that's one of three things they are good for. (the other two are attacking tanks and light armor at close range, and giving the gunner a place to sit.)

But, that's not your worst case scenario.

Your worst case scenario is that these disappear from their armories and suddenly appear in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Detroit.

That could just as easily happen if we didn't go to war with Iran. It's not as if there is any doubt in anyone's mind that Iran considers us an enemy and will do what it can to harm us whenever a suitable opportunity may present itself.
And frankly who cares. You're telling me that Iran might kill a few hundred or maybe a couple of thousand people, possibly civilians. I'm sitting here remembering that America has lost more than that in a single day's fighting, or even in a training accident, in certain historical wars where we hesitated and let a potential adversary grow rather than nipping them in the bud.

You're also assuming that the Iranian people COULD and WOULD stand up to the mullahs, which is just the type of fallacy that landed us in the jackpot in Iraq.

Actually that worked out quite well until we overstayed our welcome. More importantly, as I have already stated, I don't have any particular concern for who rules Iran, just as long we eliminate the strategic threat to the Persian Gulf which Iran's nuclear, naval, and missile development presents.

Iran has 540,000 troops, with another 300,000 in reserve. They have 1,600 battle tanks. 1,500 armored vehicles. They have 3,200 artillary pieces. 306 fighter planes. 50 attack helicopters. They have 3 submarines.
They have 130 rockets with a range of over 150 miles, and possibly four Shahab 4 rockets, with a range of over 800 miles.

Outdated Russian hardware with undertrained conscript crews and questionable maintenance. After a week or two of fighting Iran hasn't got an artillery piece within 40-50km of American positions, has no aircraft, no subs, and no shahab 4 missiles, and their quickly finding out, as Saddam did, that their missiles tend to well... miss.

And while most of Irania equipment is antiquated Russian junk, your other worst case scenario involves 100,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen spilling across the borders into Afghanistan and Iraq.

Spilling is an appropriate word, because an infantryman with inadequate artillery support usually ends up in a somewhat liquified form, courtesy of enemy artillery.


I doubt you and I will see eye to eye on this, but I have a pretty fair understanding of military history and strategy, and the lesson is clear- superior tactical and technical ability combined with the inherent advantage of being the aggressor will almost invariably overwhelm numerical superiority. If there is any doubt, ask Chesty.
The 1st Marine Division versus 7 Divisions of the PLA 9th Army Group. They fought for over a month, and when the dust settled, the 1st Marine Division was still combat effective- not one of the Chinese Divisions that had encircled them could say the same- every one of them was parted out to reinforce other Chinese units which had not had the dubious honor of finding out how the Tuefelhunden got their nickname.

In all of this discussion, I don't see where anyone has broached the subject of whether anybody in the world actually thinks that the "American brand of Democracy" is even desirable. Let's face it - you get outside the USA and talk to the rest of the world and they aren't buying any of this "USA is promoting freedom and democracy" stuff, any more. We've lost our credibility in the world and we may as well get used to it because it takes a very long time to build credibilty and very little time to lose it.

We are currently perceived to most of the world as the richest, most powerful, banana republic in history. If you don't believe me, do a little traveling and talk to the people on the ground.

Our global reputation is a joke! You really think that they all want to be just like the USA? think again.

Originally posted by xpert11
First of all thanks for taking the time to answer the questions.

Glad to.

Once the Bombing stops what is the first thing the government of Iran will rebuild ?
There nuclear program!

Then we'll bomb them again. I think it would be hillarious personally, and really a good thing. They put a year into building it, we put a week into blowing it back up, and they haven't got as much money to spend on those dang SS-N-22s.

Once the bombing ends Iran will look to rebuild its military to face the next bout of American air power.

I've got 20 bucks that says we can blow it up faster than they can build it.
USMC: We deliver more destruction overnight than anyone else who delivers overnight.

I haven't quoted your questions because they were numerous but here is my response to the general thrust of them.
I don't think it's vitally important to change Iran's tune. They can try and try to their heart's content, and they'll never get anywhere because we'll smack them every time.
Regime change would be nice, and can certainly happen because we obviously can not destroy the entire Iranian military from the air. We can only cut it off from its chain of command and disable the mobility of key elements. We use the CIA to find the ones who will sieze the moment for a power grab and we leave them intact while attacking the most loyal units. With no communication and limited equipment/mobility between our patsies and Tehran, the government will have little ability to control the military.
If we should fail to achieve regime change, that's fine though. We'll deliver a small follow-up slap on the wrist every couple of years to keep them from reconstituting their weapons programs and we'll keep it up for the next 30 years if we have to until the Mullahs are dead and all that's left is the new generation that wants to hang out at the mall and talk on cellphones like the Kuwaitis. The minute Iran gets its first McDonalds or Walmart, we have won- it'll only be a matter of time from then.

I don't always do an excellent job of expressing the complete motivation for the way I see things like I do, but at the heart of these particular views is a belief that it's easier to contain an evil regime by checking its moves militarily, and let its people grow away from the regime on their own, rather than to invade their territory and force the people to abandon their government. It is going to take a generation to change the face of Iran. That's what it's going to take- a changing of the guard. Now we can be up to our necks in Iran for that time, or we can be standing off just making sure they don't get too far out of hand. Sooner or later a younger, more liberal generation is going to come of age over there, and as long as some dang foreigner isn't waving an M-16 in their face and telling them how to rule themselves, they will pick up the ball and run with it. I'm not just advocating that we stall for stalling's sake. I'm advocating that we contain the threat and let it collapse from within, without undertaking a much larger, much more costly, much more destablizing war. This is exactly how we outlasted the Soviet Union- it can work.
That's the way I see it.

Actually I was refering more to succesful regime change enacted solely through airstrikes.

All rhetoric aside I believe the risks involved far out weigh the potential benefits and for that reason I believe the US is too weak to hit Iran succesfully.
Yes we can kick the Iranian armies ass thats not at issue here.
What is at issue is any strategic benefit this would offer us.
All we would accomplish is the establishment of a power vacuum in Iran which would then be filled by God knows who.
I disagree with your statement that whether or not Iran becomes a terrorist haven is irrelevant compared to Iran's access to strategic nuclear arms.
I believe stability is the key to guaranteeing American safety.

If the worst does occur and Iran descends into anarchy due to our actions yes we will have dashed Irans hopes of nuclear arms however the nuclear materials Iran possesed will still be there only now with no one guarding them. We would be exchanging a scenario where a relatively stable nation that can be negotiated with would be replaced with a scenario where dangerous nuclear materials are lying around for anyone to grab. We cannot guarantee the succesful destruction and securement of Iran's entire nuclear program from a hundred miles a way. Especially a program as dispersed as this one.

Not to mention the fact that Iran has a known Chemical weapons program. After the overthrow of the ayatollah all those chemical munitions will be lying around unguarded. Are you willing to bet that America will be able take out Iran's entire chemical stockpile using only long distance intel before it falls into the wrong hands?

Throw in an offensive Bioweapons program and you have a very dangerous cocktail resultign from a unstable Iran.

I would rather have a containable Nuclear Iran then a freezone for terrorists with unguarded WMDs ( I hate that term) lying around unguarded for the picking.

Well, I respect your opinion and I won't try to make you play "is not, is too" with me. You know how I feel about it and I know how you feel about it, and I think we both know that neither of our opinions has spit to do with what the people who make the decisions might be thinking about it .
Odds are we'll both be ticked off by the results, if I've learned anything from years of news watching.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by brimstone735
We would have to double our troop levels in both Iraq and Afghanistan, simply to overcompensate for the increased threat.

I respectfully disagree.

And you're a smart guy, and I respect that. I'm not going to slag you off.
Your plan still calls for boots on the ground, so I think there may be a disconnect somewhere between us.

I know we can hit them. I know we can hit them hard. I know we can knock out the nuclear reactors without sending in troops. However, I don't believe we can effectively conquer them without sending in a couple hundred thousand troops to occupy, and that's where my original problem with Ed began.

Simply put, without question, we have air superiority. We control the air. We dominate the world in regards to conventional warfare. We can destroy their infrastructure, but the root cause of the problem would still remain, and that's tens of thousands of Islamic maniacs willing to blow themselves up to take us with them. And they would be highly armed with the left overs from the Iranian armories. Not to mention the subsequent uprisings in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and we have Armageddon on our hands.

Remember, it's not the Iraqi insurgents blowing themselves up. It's the middle class kids who eat McDonalds and watch MTV from Syria and Iran, crossing over the border, and driving car bombs. Like Homicidal hippies.
How can ew expect these same kids, from these same types of Western cultured families to overthrow the mullahs?

Originally posted by brimstone735
And you're a smart guy, and I respect that. I'm not going to slag you off.
Your plan still calls for boots on the ground, so I think there may be a disconnect somewhere between us.

I appreciate the kind words friend. I believe the disconnect is in that I said "no boots on the ground" when what I should have said was simply that occupying Iranian territory was not a priority. We definately have to defend our airbases. I cited the Gulf War as an example of the ability of airpower to force a surrender, and of course the Gulf War air offensive would have been impossible if Desert Shield were not keeping the bases in Saudi safe.

However, I don't believe we can effectively conquer them without sending in a couple hundred thousand troops to occupy, and that's where my original problem with Ed began.

You are absolutely right that we can not conquer them from the air. What I propose is merely to degrade them and keep them relatively harmless while we bide out time for a newer more liberal generation to come of age and reform the Iranian government. I just think that staying safe and letting them evolve will be more feasible than conquering them.
If we want to talk about conquest, then frankly Dean was right- it would take a draft to occupy Iraq and Iran at the same time. I don't think a draft is in line with American principles or American military doctrine, so I believe that to be simply unacceptable. As Heinlen said, "If a country can't get its own citizens to defend it, let the (bleep) thing go to (bleep)." or something to that effect.

Remember, it's not the Iraqi insurgents blowing themselves up. It's the middle class kids who eat McDonalds and watch MTV from Syria and Iran, crossing over the border, and driving car bombs. Like Homicidal hippies.
How can ew expect these same kids, from these same types of Western cultured families to overthrow the mullahs?

I had a different impression of what the typical suicide bomber's background was. I'll have to do some reading to inform myself before I can speak with any authority on the subject. Feel free to offer me any sources which you feel might be revealing.

But, The Vagabond at the moment they are doing nothing wrong.

To Iran having the ability to use Nuclear Power stations is a good thing just from the simple money basis. They will have to use less oil as power and in turn they will be able to sell more oil.

In the end it is just about the American Government deciding who can and can't have Nuclear Weapons when in fact they do not have the right. Yes we might not like the Iranian Government or agree with what they say but the Iranian people are armed - they have the ability to over-throw their Government if they desired and they have not yet tried.

Also if they do bomb Iran, I think America will be the one who has lost out. Iran, Syria, etc, all have a lot of oil which gets traded throughout the Western World and just the other side of the Middle East you have Russia and China waiting and needing more oil...if America attacks Iran it will be playing into those Nation's hands as it has done with Iraq.

If the people of the Middle East begin to turn against America and forget what Russia and China was like to them and other Muslims the oil will be going to the other power-players in World Politics and could lead to a devestating effect on America.

It funny how folks say "read" what I wrote and yet neither did they.

Vagabond has put it much better than I could, but I have said consistently that WE DON'T NEED to invade or conquer. I firmly believe that Iran will IMPLODE and I have stated it more than once.

The troops we have would be sufficient for defense I would think, at least in the short term, but I do not think that the stability in Iran would remain for very long at all.

One other side note, Iranians are not Arabs and they think much differently. They are not all screaming religious fanatics, they are highly intelligent and are fully aware of the oppression they are under. Their economy at one time was a jewel in the Middle East and now? Its crap and GETTING Worse.


Again, there is no need to invade, and I think that Vagabond and I might disagree on the reasons, but his are just as valid. Containment could work, I do not feel that it will be necessary for long.


As for the quality of the Iranian military and its huge daunting numbers, I would think that the last 3 wars of any size would make that statement moot.


[edit on 21-8-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
One other side note, Iranians are not Arabs and they think much differently. They are not all screaming religious fanatics, they are highly intelligent and are fully aware of the oppression they are under. Their economy at one time was a jewel in the Middle East and now? Its crap and GETTING Worse.
[edit on 21-8-2005 by edsinger]

Nor are Arabs screaming Religious fanatics?

Do you honestly think some of them do not like being able to oppress others?

I am sure in the 1800's men in Europe loved having so much power over women otherwise they would have not tried to hold onto it for so long - in fact till 1992 in the United Kingdom.

Slavery again is an example of this - people like to hold power over others, especailly those who normally would be powerless.

Well your right and I was wrong to put it like that. I just meant to confer that they do not 'think' like arabs at all, they are persians and things like the enemy of your enemy is your friend and such..

bad choice of words I will admit, but I have had a long day...........

Not all arabs are screaming maniacs, just the nutcases are.

Originally posted by Odium
But, The Vagabond at the moment they are doing nothing wrong.

And? How many times do I have to say that I lean towards the amoral viewpoint? I do not particularly have a great big load of care for who is right or who is doing wrong. We told them to stop, we can make them stop, it would be a really good idea for them to stop. We consider it a potential threat to our security. We ought not count on their goodness to ensure peace. It's better for us that they should live by our leave, not the other way around.

To Iran having the ability to use Nuclear Power stations is a good thing just from the simple money basis. They will have to use less oil as power and in turn they will be able to sell more oil.

America is not entirely unreasonable (or so I would dearly like to think). Let them scrap their missile program, give up their enrichment facilities, and do one of the following two things: operate light water reactors only. operate the more attractive CANDU type under strict US supervision, with a "destroy on first violation" policy in effect, and when the SSTARs are finally out we can get them off of the breeder reactors all together.
en.wikipedia.org...

In the end it is just about the American Government deciding who can and can't have Nuclear Weapons when in fact they do not have the right.

Exactly right. Only difference between us here is that I don't have a problem with that because I fancy myself more of a realist and less of an idealist.

If the people of the Middle East begin to turn against America and forget what Russia and China was like to them and other Muslims the oil will be going to the other power-players in World Politics and could lead to a devestating effect on America.

They're out to rape us anyway, we may as well go down fighting. Lest we forget my whole point in wanting to attack Iran is so that they can't shut down the Persian Gulf and deliver Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait into a rival's hand.

Ed actually bring up a good point here that is pretty much ignored by most in the Western world.

Iranians or Persians are not Arabs. Because they are in the ME, they get lumped into peoples sterotypes or misconceptions.

Indo-European is actually the correct term. Even when conqured by Arabs and Islam, they accepted it but on thier terms hence the #e / Sunny split you see. There are far more differences than similarities once you get past the oil.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Well, I respect your opinion and I won't try to make you play "is not, is too" with me. You know how I feel about it and I know how you feel about it, and I think we both know that neither of our opinions has spit to do with what the people who make the decisions might be thinking about it

.
Odds are we'll both be ticked off by the results, if I've learned anything from years of news watching.

Agreed
Neither of us really knows spit and we're both operating off of conjecture from our own experiences.
There's nothing wrong with that just as long as we keep perspective on the matter. Mainly that neither of our opinions amount to much in the real world.

Only time shall tell what shall come of this and one thing we can agree on is the hope things turn out for the best.

Saying that the US is too weak to hit Iran is a bit of a stretch.

US airpower could bring Iran to it's knees by destroying Iran's infrastructure, and most of the nuclear program as well as all organized national defense and arms depots.
What the US cannot afford to do both economically and in manpower is occupy Iran and involve itself in yet another effort of "nation building".

That said, should such an attack occur, the international mess this would create is beyond comprehension and would most likely drive this republican into the anti-war camp.

The Vagabond, do you not think though by bombing Iran they could actually turn other Nations over to these Countries?

For instance doing such a thing could increase terrorist attacks in places like Saudi Arabia and do massive amounts of damage to their Country due to their stance on America.

Even worst case resulting in a revolution or civil war.

I would weight the chances of a successful revolution in Saudi or the other gulf states as being considerably lower than the near certainty that Iran will eventually go to war with the United Arab Emirates and quite likely gain unquestioned control of the Strait of Hormuz if they should acquire a deterrent which may protect them from US intervention. The Chinese and

Russians will certainly react, as will Muslims, but there are few ways in which they could react which have the same horrible promise as a nuclear-armed Iran flexiing its muscle in the Gulf region.
Russia will tighten it's grip on fromer Soviet states in Central Asia, we'll likely have to resist them by proxy in Turkmenistan to protect the natural gas flow through Afghanistan to Karachi, which is the whole reason we invaded Afghanistan.
China will look to up the stakes in Korea and possibly gain influence in Indonesia.
There is a decent chance that the Russians and Chinese might back a Venezeulan war on Columbia, though it would be risky and they might not go that far.

An ISI-lead coup in Pakistan would be the worst case scenario obviously. Luckily, this would have to happen on its own. To encourage it would pose a serious danger to India, which would be bad for Russia, and thus China can not do it without losing a valuable ally in Russia. A coup by the ISI would demand a nuclear first strike against Pakistan's missile bases by American submarines to protect India and Iraq. This would be disasterous. I am militant, but I am not mad, I do not like the idea of throwing nukes around. The economic fallout of such an attack can not be ignored.

This consideration does force me to adopt my estimate of what is necessary to make war on Iran. I think it would be unwise to risk such a move without positioning harware and aircraft in Afghanistan first, with additional troops prepared for immediate deployment in the event of a coup in Pakistan. It would be necessary to invade Pakistan and destroy their military if a coup were to take place there, as well as to have sufficient airpower on station to destroy their missiles immediately by conventional means if they should fall into rebel hands.

While this is an unpleasant possibility, and would add to the cost of a war which i admit would already be likely to cost a few thousand American lives, I continue to believe that defeating Iran's ability to threaten the Gulf region trumps virtually every other strategic concern in the world today.


Finally, I would like to mention one thing which simply can not be overstated. There is a peaceful way to America to save itself a great deal of future blood shed,although I maintain that iran is hear and now and already must be dealt with.
America must decrease oil dependence and develop the methods to access and process deeper oil deposits and other forms of oil (such as oil sand) in order to make allies such as Australia and Canada viable alternatives to the Middle East.
The money that we are pumping into military technology which isn't immediately necessary, the money we are putting into maintaining bases we really can't afford to defend in nations we really don't need access to (such as South Korea, Germany, etc) would be better spent on removing us from dependence on regions which require too much military effort to keep stable.

There aren't many things which I consider paramount to defense, but if I were running the show everything the military is working on which isn't VITALLY NECESSARY would be put in stasis and its funding would go to the futher development of hydro power, nuclear power, tax incentives and grants for electric transportation infrastructure and public transportation development, and of course research of ways to get at the less accessible oil which remains in our nation and our allies.
The DD(X) can wait. Refitting the Ohio class Submarines can wait. The OICW can wait. Even missile defense can wait.
I believe reducing our dependence on the Middle East will prevent far more wars than a new class of destroyers will.


On a tangent to the note I've ended this thread on, I'll be starting a thread in Energy + Science @PTS about the program I would advocate for weening America off of Mid East oil. I'll link it if I get it done before the edit window is over.
Edit:
LINK: politics.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 21-8-2005 by The Vagabond]

edit to fix link

[edit on 21-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Vagabond sorry about the slow response.
Is there a Walmart in North Korea?
Has slapping the wrist of other regimes done any good?
Iran would (if they havnt alreadly) move it WMD program into schools and hosiptals.
What is to stop Iran moving its nuclear program underground and thus away from prying eyes?
I cant find any info but Im pretty sure the CIA tried to overthrow Saddam in the mid 90s with the backing of the Clinton admin.
No doubt the government of Iran would have taken notice this. No doubt the CIA will have do take a good look at itself in the mirror.
Vagabond assuming that your plan works what will you do when the new regime gose bad with in 20 years time?
Iraq is the perfect example of this Americas best friend in the 1980s........