Attack on Iran would threaten U.S. army in Iraq

[DogPoundPup]

Source: UPI Security Industry

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- An Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran could bring about the loss of the army that the United States still keeps deployed in Iraq.

If I sound like the Roman politician Cato in repeating this warning endlessly, I do so with reason. The destruction of an entire American army in Iraq would mark a historic turning point. It would prove to be America's Syracuse expedition -- echoing the fate of the army that the classical Greek democracy of Athens lost in Sicily around 414 B.C. The Syracuse expedition is what the Iraq war has resembled from the start.

Today, the U.S. strategic position in Iraq hangs by a thread, its long, thin supply line coming up through the Persian Gulf and Kuwait. If the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allied Iraqi Shiite militias who already control southern Iraq cut that line, the best outcome we can hope for is a "sauve que peut" -- save what is possible -- withdrawal of U.S. forces north into Kurdistan.

To this happy picture, a Likud government in Israel that looks likely to be elected to power in the general election of Feb. 10 might add a war with Syria and an open U.S. break with Pakistan, driven by Pakistani popular anger at the United States for its alliance with a Likud-led Israel under the direction of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. That would cut the main U.S. supply line for the war in Afghanistan over Pakistan-controlled air space -- again forcing a withdrawal.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/01/09/Attack_on_Iran_would_threaten_US_army_in_Iraq/UPI-14521231534545/

[Doctor_J]

1. If WW III breaks out in the next 11 days, will * leave office?

:shrug:

[thunder rising]

2. You mean this was actually in a paper ... in DC? Really? This is crazy talk, they are all defeated

[HopeHoops]

3. Isn't this in the "WELL DUH!" department?

[okiru109]

4. ain't that why we got all them nukes?

seems like such a waste of of our tax dollars if we can never use them when necessary to blast through any "diplomatic" roadblocks.

well, look at all the lives saved and peace won with only 2 of them in wwII... shoot and now we got even bigger and better ones today (thanks to the magic of science) heck, it will probably only require 1 this time to bring on the mana!

[stillcool]

5. I think the problem with those nukes..

is that they kind of fuck up the land for future inhabitants. I think the smaller ones would be more appropriate. Do they make smart nukes yet? Ones that can take out the center of government, but leave all the surrounding area pristine?

[okiru109]

6. yeah, but who wants to live there anyways... besides we got robots now, too =)

and sure, we got smart nukes now, too!

the Neutron bomb, yipee

[stillcool]

7. Don't want to fuck up the oil...

[Journeyman]

8. I'm hoping someone's perfected an "O" and a "P' bomb by now. . .

take out only the Officers and Politicians, leave the rest of us in peace.

[Wizard777]

10. The USA has a bomb design that only kills people. It will not not damage buildings.

[stillcool]

13. Anthrax?

[Wizard777]

14. No. I forgot what it's called. I though it was a hydrogen bomb. But that Nuke.

It was developed shortly after the nuclear bomb. It emits an energy wave that is fatal to human but will not harm buildings or land. It would allow us to kill all the people and move right in take over the infrastructure. All their goods would still be intact and usable

[frylock]

16. ever heard of the neutron bomb?

Destroys people, leaves buildings standing. Fits in a suitcase so small, no one knows it's there, until: BLAM!

Eyes melt, skin explodes; everybody dead.

It's so immoral working on it, it can drive you mad. That happened to a friend of mine, so he had a lobotomy. Now he's well again.

[Wizard777]

19. Yeah, it kinda turns the area into a microwave version of Auschwitz.

[PFunk]

15. It's called a neutron bomb.

And while it won't destroy buildings. It does leave residue radiation that still makes the place unihabitable for weeks afterwards. Plus (and I could be wrong on this one) also destroys any electronics in and around the area. And who says the bad guys can't re-enter those areas afterwards (after all they live nearby). Besides with less cost and side-effects a nice bioplague/chemical bomb would do the same thing.

[Wizard777]

18. That's it! Thank you for helping over this senior moment.

[happyslug]

20. But NOT people under ground or in Concrete building

The Neutron bomb was designed to destroy Soviet Armored Columns as their crashed through the Iron Curtain on they way to the Atlantic Ocean. Neutrons penetration is defeated by thickness not strength, thus the Armor of a tank, being only 3-4 inches would permit the neutrons to penetrate and kill the crew, it would kill any soldier caught above ground. On the other hand Soldiers and Civilians in underground basements would have several FEET of dirt to block the Neutrons and survive quite well.

The problem we face in Iraq and Afghanistan is OUR troops are the troops in the Tanks while the Iraqi and Afghans rebels are the ones in the concrete housing (Concrete is the prefer housing material in the Mid-East, it is durable, fairly cheap and can be produced with local material unlike wood, brick and steel which have to be imported). Thus we will NOT use Neutron bombs in either Country.

To understand the Neutron bomb you must first understand the Hydrogen Bomb. The Hydrogen Bomb is set off by first exploding a Uranium Atomic Bomb, that supplies the energy to fuse Hydrogen into Helium. Thus you are suing a Fission bomb (The Atomic Bomb is a fission bomb in that it is the result of SPLITTING Uranium or plutonium into other elements, the split produces a huge amount of energy, which is then used in a Hydrogen bomb to furze Hydrogen atoms into helium, which releases a huge number of neutrons which in a Hydrogen bomb is used to split even more Uranium, it is this second division of Uranium by Neutrons produced by the Fusing of Hydrogen that gives the H-Bomb is full blast potential).

A neutron bomb is a hydrogen bomb WITHOUT the secondary Uranium. In neutron Bomb a Small Atomic Bomb sets off a Hydrogen Fusion reaction, but there is NO additional Uranium to split, thus all you have is a tremendous number of lose neutrons which then is absorbed by everything around it. In living Tissue this absorption destroy the tissue, killing people, plants, animals etc, but the neutrons is also absorbed by any other material, steel, dirt, concrete etc. The thicker the material is the more neutrons it will absorb. Thus strength is NOT the issue, thickness is. The thicker is the material the more atoms of that material the Neutrons will hit and be absorbed by that material. A few feet is often enough to absorb the number of neutrons to a safe limit. thus my comment on US Troops being in Tanks will NOT be protected from the affect of a Neutron Bomb, while Iraqis inside their concrete homes will be. No Neutrons bombs in Iraq, gas maybe (It sinks to basements, so in gas attacks it is recommended you go UP, thus people will face the situation, be killed by Machine Gun Fire by Climbing to the Roof, or killed by gas if their climb into their basements. No need to Neutron bombs in that situation, tank guns, artillery and machine guns will provide all the damage needed if gas is used to get people out of their basements.

[Pavulon]

9. No worries, this topic is big drama here.

you dont need nukes or thousand to cause destroy a nation. See that footage where that dam broke in tennessee? Yeppers, blow every dam in Iran at the EXACT same minute, say 1am. Pretty much the same as a nuke.

We killed 300 people a SECOND when we burned tokyo. That was 1945. Long before the b52 and the 100,000 lb bomb load.

No one is attacking Iran.

[Ghost Dog]

17. I'm just wondering who here is able to turn this discussion on its head,

and imagine it referred to a planned strike on, say, DC.

[Wizard777]

11. I agree whole heartedly.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.