Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 25, 9:49 pm, Alan Jones <ala...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24 Feb 2007 11:11:14 -0800, "Jordan" <JSBassior2...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

What would a "calm and rational" response to Iran launching a war
against America by firing ICBM's at American cities look like? As
opposed to the "panic" one?
- Jordan

The response could be exactly the same. The immediate response would
be the politically correct one. The delayed response would show a
political weakness of the Commander in Chief to take action. After
weeks of study, focus groups, public opinion polls, building
congressional support, public debate, etc., the response would seem
cold and calculating, rather than dutiful.

???

I think you're missing the point here. Once Iran had launched any
ICBM's at American cities, America and Iran would be at war. Why
would any even marginally-competent President not strike to neutralize
Iranian military assets, especially strategic ones, as rapidly as
possible? The situation would cry out for rapid action, because of
the very strong possibility that the Iranians might have additional
missiles in reserve, missiles which (if we failed to take them out on
the ground) might be launched in a follow-on attack, one which might
take advantage of the fact that we had expended some of our ABM's and
revealed some of our deployment and tactics, and hence be more likely
to penetrate to score severe damage upon American cities, forces or
installations.

I'm not saying that we would have to act before we were ready, but we
_normally_ keep _some_ forces in readiness to deal with just the
scenario given (a surprise nuclear attack). If there was an SSBN
anywhere near the Persian Gulf, it could pop its nukes over Iranian
strategic force targets in a matter of 15-45 minutes (depending on its
position and depth); American ICBM's could be hitting their targets
within 30-60 minues; manned bombers within a matter of hours. I would
be utterly astonished to hear that the Pentagon does _not_ have some
at least basic plans for rapid retaliation against each of the
Terrorist States, or any of them in combination, which they could have
before the President within minutes of such an attack (in this age of
electronic communications).

Taking out the Iranian strategic capability, to ensure that there
would be no follow-on strikes, would be the top priority of any
American President. After the damage caused (if any) by the Iranian
attack had been determined, _then_ there could be war policy meetings
to decide whether our goal should be force neutralization, regime
change, or cultural elimination (a nice way to say "kill the bastards
and hunt down any survivors, so that Farsi will be spoken only in
Hell.").

Force netralization would be certainly the _minimum_ politically
acceptable goal in this scenario. Any President who responded to a
nuclear attack on the American homeland by a third-rate Power like
Iran without at least launching a campaign of _some_ sort against
Iran, and making sure they couldn't launch a second attack, would be
facing impeachment, even if he went into the situation with a majority
in the Congress.

Under far less provocation, Jimmy Carter essentially lost his bid for
re-election for failing to punish that very same country -- I think
that US Presidents can read history!

- Jordan

.