It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jtma508
I don't buy your timeline. Personally, I think that if the US decides to screw with Iran things will escalate much, much faster. Iran has learned from the recent Iraq wars that if it doesn't use its military assets early-on they likely won't be there to use. Iran knows that even in our currently depleted military state, we still have the capacity to ravage their military and C3 assets. Any large-scale bombing campaign will panic their already fractured population and create significant internal unrest and pressure. Iran's leaders cannot allow this. Further, if the US feels the need to destroy or attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities it is widely accepted thath it would require tactical nukes to do this. The ramifications of nuking Iran are immense beyond measure.
If the US were to attack Iran, I believe Iran would act immediately to close the Straits, would attack our assets in Iraq, would attempt to attack the oil refineries in Iraq and would initiate massive and widespread suicide campaigns --- worldwide. The global economic hardship that would result from the war would be crippling, the US would be held accountable and their would be serious economic reprisals against us. I don't believe the situation woulkd drag-out nearly as long as you have suggested.
Originally posted by NGC2736
shrunken, why not 'dud' all the lethal weapons then? Why stop at nukes? Gunpowder is chemical in nature. IEDs are too. So is pollution.
And while they're at it, couldn't they so something about turning water into wine, I mean at least one river per nation would seem fair.