Iran Attack Strategy 'Is Ready If Needed'

Iran Attack Strategy 'Is Ready If Needed'

news.sky.com

The highest-ranking military officer in the US has confirmed the country has a plan to attack Iran - but it will not be put into action anytime soon.

Admiral Mike Mullen has confirmed there is a plan to attack Iran if needed

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a plan does exist - although he thought a strike was probably a bad idea.

Such an attack would only be launched to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, he added.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Of course there is a plan in place. I'm sure a plan to attack Iran has been in place in one way or another since long before there was talk of nuclear arms.

Iran WILL be attacked in the near future. With all of the constant threats and refusal to work with the UN, it is not a matter of "if" but "when".

The admiral is right about the reprecussions of an attack on Iran. If the U.S. attacks Iran, it will mean all out war with the Middle East.

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This really doesn't surprise me. I am sure there is a plan in place for any course of action that Iran would take whether negative or positive. Actually I am sure there is a military plan for every other nation and country that could ever pose a possible threat to the U.S, including some of our closest allies such as England, Australia, and probably even Canada.

SkyNews Article

The American officer has often warned that a military strike would have serious and unpredictable consequences across the Middle East.

However, he also said the risk of the country acquiring a nuclear weapon was unacceptable.

Of course it would be unacceptable. We cant let countries we have been planning to attack and are only waiting for an expedient time to do so develop the technology that would let them fight back, now can we?



[edit on 1-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

I will suspend my belief that Iran, Israel, and NATO-USA are all on the same team playing ball together, and pretend that this is an actual war-like situation between two powers that hate each other.

Ok in this fantasy situation, I would say to Iran this.

Good, you better have an attack strategy, and several of them.

In modern warfare there is no defense strategy, that's called getting bombed and bunkering down. And that's how you lose a war.

In modern warfare the only defense is a strong offense. Everyone knows that.

There will only be 1 phase that Iran needs to worry about. Massive missile barrages within the first hour. This phase determines everything and will write the history of the war.

All phases after this can go different directions, and are entirely dependent on what happens during the first phase (1 hour).

But that is just all fantasy talk, because in reality they are all on the same team. War is just a game used to distract and occupy the people and keep them from building up independence from the global system of manipulation.

If left alone, citizens will build up wealth over time. And wealth translates into influence. So these wars and other things, like taxes, excessive laws and fines, among other regulations end up sapping the population as a whole.

Not just in one nation, but in all nations. There are so many wars going on at any given time, the entire world is distracted and held in a quagmire.

War is quicksand for the economic prosperity of common citizens.

That is why it exists.

Those in positions of power right now, will lose their influence if the citizenry is allowed to build up too much wealth too quickly.

I suspect that the US has attack plans stored somewhere which deal with just about every possible military confrontation imaginable, and every country too.

Makes good sense to plan, however publicising it is just contributing to the psychological war on Iran.

This isn’t really anything new. It’s well known that states with an advanced military and intelligence network have response plans that will cover most imaginable eventualities. With Iran being a high threat they probably have plans for hostage rescue, nuclear detonation, perceptive nuclear strike plans, invasion plans and yes a plan for war as well as other contingency plans. They will probably have the same for DPRK, Burma, India, Pakistan, Yemen and just about any other state on earth. This is not evidence that these plans are going to be put into action rather it just makes strategic sense.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

In modern warfare there is no defense strategy, that's called getting bombed and bunkering down. And that's how you lose a war.

In modern warfare the only defense is a strong offense. Everyone knows that.

Depends what your definition of "modern" is.

Some people in "modern" times, (Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., for example) have realized at the outset that a strong offense is impossible. They simply did not have the military might to launch a strong offensive and have a prayer of any other outcome aside from being pounded into dust.

Iran is also in that position. It is outgunned. It cannot launch a strong offensive, we have spent decades ensuring that the chess pieces we have planned all along to take are not able to build up an arsenal capable of defeating us.

You are being overly simplistic when you think of war only in military terms. Guns, weapons, soldiers. Your own leaders are much more astute than you. They know public support is every bit as important as military might. Iran knows that too. Gandhi knew that too. Martin Luther King Jr, knew that too. Unfortunately for Iran, the people in the US and in the first world do not have a free press, as was the case for MLK and Gandhi. So we cannot clearly see who is doing what and under what provocation.

Bottom line, a strong offense is not the only winning strategy. It may be a good one, but it is one not everyone can pursue. There are other strategies available, but making them work is becoming increasingly difficult as the economic powers consolidate information sharing systems.

You must understand most every country has a strategy to attack/defend against every other country...

reply to post by SUICIDEHK45


Great let's publicize we have theorized how to attack Iran. What a great way to keep the region stable, keep them continually looking over their shoulder or devise a preemptive strategy of their own.

Why is our government so ignorant?

THIS IS JUST MORE" POT BOILING."...
No day can go by without a certain level of rhetoric being kept if they want to mobilise the sentiments of the populace.
Most of our "news"amounts to similar machinations.
There is a long ways to go before the shack and awe stage.
Though i firmly believe that if the bombing starts it will go nuclear fairly quickly.

on that note; China, Mexico, Canada, Turkey, well you get where I am going with this, attack strategies are "ready if needed." The only concern on anyone's mind should be, what qualifies as "needed."

FACTS ARE:
All these countries already have nuke bombs; Iran says she is working only on peaceful nuclear technology for energy. The UN nuclear inspectors are watching them. Because Israel said so, we Americans have to follow orders from them and start another war for Israel. Perhaps start WW3!

America 10000 warheads and used them before!
Russia 10000 war heads
France 5000 warheads
China 10000 warheads
Britain 4000 warheads
Israel 600 warheads
India 500 warheads
Pakistan 500 warheads
N-Korea 400 warhead
South Africa has unknown numbers of warheads and more countries with practical nuke bombs.

Iran 00000 warheads! THE INTERESTING PART IS: after 40 years has not finished her 1st nuclear reactor to gain energy yet. WE ARE JUST WARMONGERS AND ATTACK COUNTRIES LIKE IRAQ BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION!

Terrorism, Oil, Mineral Rights, Drugs? I can tell you now there is something they aren't telling us

[edit on 1-8-2010 by superluminal11]

reply to post by superluminal11


Just curious, where did you get the North Korea nuclear warhead figure from. Last I heard through the grapevine that they don't even have 1 CONFIRMED. I know about the "test" detonation, but there are a few well-researched papers that go into detail on how that detonation was not even nuclear in nature.

I digress, and do not wish to argue whether or not they have any nukes, just where you got the figure "400 warhead" from. Thanks in advance brother or sister.

reply to post by SUICIDEHK45


TPTB, I think, are more concerned with Iran getting DU weapons than actual nuclear bombs. These are only 5% enriched uranium.

Note how it is tough going in Afghanistan. This is to a large extent due to the restraint of the use of DU. Musn't harm those valuable poppy fields or their water supply. DU is used like a "human bug bomb".

Look at the reports from Fallujah.

VERY Wrong:

US: ~5000
Russia ~5000
China ~400
France ~300
UK ~300
Israel ~400
NK 8-10
India ~80
Pakistan ~60-70
Iran The 2 purchased way back when from Kazakhstan

Originally posted by superluminal11
FACTS ARE:
All these countries already have nuke bombs; Iran says she is working only on peaceful nuclear technology for energy. The UN nuclear inspectors are watching them. Because Israel said so, we Americans have to follow orders from them and start another war for Israel. Perhaps start WW3!

America 10000 warheads and used them before!
Russia 10000 war heads
France 5000 warheads
China 10000 warheads
Britain 4000 warheads
Israel 600 warheads
India 500 warheads
Pakistan 500 warheads
N-Korea 400 warhead
South Africa has unknown numbers of warheads and more countries with practical nuke bombs.

Iran 00000 warheads! THE INTERESTING PART IS: after 40 years has not finished her 1st nuclear reactor to gain energy yet. WE ARE JUST WARMONGERS AND ATTACK COUNTRIES LIKE IRAQ BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION!

Terrorism, Oil, Mineral Rights, Drugs? I can tell you now there is something they aren't telling us

[edit on 1-8-2010 by superluminal11]

[edit on 1-8-2010 by princeofpeace]

reply to post by superluminal11

Britain 4000 warheads

LOL We have less than Israel's several hundred nukes.

N-Korea 400 warhead

Bigger LOL

[edit on 1-8-2010 by john124]

reply to post by princeofpeace


haha thank you. I was just putting together the payload-counts myself from peer-reviewed sources, glad I can stop half way.

Where are you getting your North Korean count from? I am genuinely curious. Thanks in advance.

I just googled it and the many estimates are all in fairly close agreement: The estimates are fairly easy to determine because of the size of NK's reactors and how long they have been operating thus how many bombs can be made from its spent material. I think the big question is how many are actually assemebled versus how many they could "potentially" have.

"According to various sources of information, North Korea seemed to have reprocessed enough plutonium to produce one or two nuclear weapons. In addition, sufficient plutonium for another six nuclear weapons remained in fuel removed from the reactor at Yongbon but stored under international supervision, under the provisions of the 1994 Agreed Framework."

Originally posted by Shark VA84
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

haha thank you. I was just putting together the payload-counts myself from peer-reviewed sources, glad I can stop half way.

Where are you getting your North Korean count from? I am genuinely curious. Thanks in advance.

LOL

Such an attack would only be launched to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon

We only attack if they are developing a nuclear weapon. Which means, right now, they aren't developing one.

Could it be any more clear to all the folks on here who want to nuke Iran for no reason other than the false allegations and finger pointing we've done over the last 9 years? No it couldn't.