Iran to send ships near U.S. coast

[Zakharra]

I was talking about the retaliation, actually - it'd be a political goldmine for the opposing American party if the party-in-power deployed a nuclear response, and almost as much if they didn't.

Actually, no it wouldn't. Pretty much most of the US population would be behind such an attack. If what you're saying was true, the Democrats would have opposed the retaliation into Afghanistan a lot more than they did (note, they barely made a peep against the force authorization into Afghanistan and not much of one into Iraq).

The party not in power would only have a gold mine if the current party/President did NOT respond militarily.

[TheGlyphstone]

Actually, no it wouldn't. Pretty much most of the US population would be behind such an attack. If what you're saying was true, the Democrats would have opposed the retaliation into Afghanistan a lot more than they did (note, they barely made a peep against the force authorization into Afghanistan and not much of one into Iraq).

The party not in power would only have a gold mine if the current party/President did NOT respond militarily.

Optimistically, I agree with you, but this was an addendum to a list of reasons for not retaliating that included Americans believed we deserved to be attacked such and a strong 'do not be like them' movement. If the invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq had been preceded with nuclear strikes, I'm completely confident the Democrats would have screamed bloody murder over the 'senseless barbarism that could have been replaced by conventional weapons' or some such nonsense, even if nukes had been used on 9/11. Same thing if the parties in question were reversed.

[Zeitgeist]

I'm not sure we'd have to retaliate in kind with a nuclear strike. We could just as easily pulverize them with a deluge of conventional weapons. I suspect that route would be significantly more expensive than drop 1-2 nuclear bombs however.

I remain unconvinced they'd actually carry through with a strike (Iran that is). It's much more economical and practical for them to appear to have the capability, than it is to contemplate using it.

For all their supposed religiosity, I think they are far more pragmatic and interested ultimately in saving their own skin over any ideology.

[Missy]

I personally think the suggestion that anyone deserves to be the victim of a nuclear attack is an idea well within the realm of lunacy. Sorry if that offends you.

As far as releasing nuclear weapons in retaliation, I don't want to, I'd personally want to be on the front lines liberating those poor misguided people, fanatics or not, from such an awful regime as to seriously launch such a cowardly attack on any nation. However, if we didn't make a retaliation other similarly cruel regimes would take it as a green light to launch devices of their own. Allowing a nuclear attack to go without counterstrike would cast the freeworld into the darkness of tyranny, leaving us at the mercy of whomever could manage to acquire weapons of cruelty and murder. We would usher in a new age of terrorism and subjugation and tyrants would forever be victorious over light of freedom and liberty, Tyrants would forever overshadow the most basic manifest human rights of free will and personal choice. We, homo sapiens, our species would forever be slaves to the few and the perverse.

[Callie Del Noire]

I personally think the suggestion that anyone deserves to be the victim of a nuclear attack is an idea well within the realm of lunacy. Sorry if that offends you.

As far as releasing nuclear weapons in retaliation, I don't want to, I'd personally want to be on the front lines liberating those poor misguided people, fanatics or not, from such an awful regime as to seriously launch such a cowardly attack on any nation. However, if we didn't make a retaliation other similarly cruel regimes would take it as a green light to launch devices of their own. Allowing a nuclear attack to go without counterstrike would cast the freeworld into the darkness of tyranny, leaving us at the mercy of whomever could manage to acquire weapons of cruelty and murder. We would usher in a new age of terrorism and subjugation and tyrants would forever be victorious over light of freedom and liberty, Tyrants would forever overshadow the most basic manifest human rights of free will and personal choice. We, homo sapiens, our species would forever be slaves to the few and the perverse.

I would say that Tom Clancy had the suitable response to the use of a WMD on the US.. In one of his books, a unified Persian Republic (Iran/Iraq) used bio-weapons on the US. President Ryan returned the favor by using a surgical missile strike. It was an interesting machine, the characters Chavez and Clark laze the leader's building while Ryan announces that they (the US) will go after the people who do the acts and not the people they rule. The press conference cuts to the video of the complex as the smart bombs come gliding in.

Suitable for a book.. but I'm not sure the reversal of the Executive Order by President Ford against the assassination of foreign leaders is something that could actually be done.

[Zakharra]

Suitable for a book.. but I'm not sure the reversal of the Executive Order by President Ford against the assassination of foreign leaders is something that could actually be done.

If a President issued an Executive Order that outlawed the assassination of foreign leaders, the then and current President could nullify it. Personally, if I was President, I'd have removed that little order long ago.  If a nation wants to make war against us, the leadership and military will be one of the first targets. It makes sense to me that the leaders would be a priority target to kill. By snipers, smart missiles, targeted strikes or the bombardment of their homes and offices. Make them sweat a little.

[Callie Del Noire]

If a President issued an Executive Order that outlawed the assassination of foreign leaders, the then and current President could nullify it. Personally, if I was President, I'd have removed that little order long ago.  If a nation wants to make war against us, the leadership and military will be one of the first targets. It makes sense to me that the leaders would be a priority target to kill. By snipers, smart missiles, targeted strikes or the bombardment of their homes and offices. Make them sweat a little.

Well it would be political suicide for a president to reverse it and and I doubt that it would stand long. I understand that assassination is a tool of the game, and has been for as long as one tribe fought another. Thing is.. if we revoke it, foreign leaders will assume that they are targets and respond in kind.

As far as the Iranian governement has been saying we've been at a war standing with them since the 1970s when they took power. Things like that executive order was the only thing that kept other governments from responding in like.

The bombing of Libyan leader Quadafi's complex but missing him by President Regan is a clear sign that we were respecting the limits we set upon ourselves. At that time, he was killing rivals in Europe and had even kidnapped a dissident in the US who was a recipient of political asylum (he was executed in Libya after his kidnapping). 

We have rules of conduct and engagement for a reason. It shows we are wiling to stop at a specific point and go no further. Limits must be respected.

[Ironwolf85]

we are the good guys on the world stage, people might complain about the US but at least we have standards about what we will and will not resort to.
side note: the moral high ground is great for placing artillery or from which to lazer a target.

assassianation is carried out against targets covertly in a civilan setting, especally when in a state of peace with another nation.
when at war hitting the enemy HQ with a drone strike, or blowing up the enemy presidental palace with a few well placed shells is fully within the conventions of warfare. a US military sniper taking down enemy leadership on the battlefield is diffrent than a cold war KGB agent hiding in a crowd of civilans and shooting a political activist.
the line is blurry at times but we have to be careful, you don't want to let that can of worms open

[Zakharra]

 I should have clarified my statement.  I didn't  mean assassinating  national leaders in a time of peace. That's stupid and dangerous. I meant that in a time of war, to put the leaders of the nation(s) at war with us in the line of fire. That it's their heads directly on the line, that besides just the military of their nation being killed, men and women with long ranged rifles, smart bombs/missiles and other gadgets are coming with the intent to kill them. Up to and including  bombardment of their offices, work buildings and homes if need be. That they'd have to hide like rats to have a chance at being safe.

[Ironwolf85]

there is a distinct diffrence between ordering your "loyal freedom fighters" to die for you and being in the line of fire yourself. few of iran's modern leadership have ever been shot at, let alone fought on the front lines.
they might have a few vets from the Iran/Iraq war in the leadership somewhere, but mostly Iran's leadership including amadijacannaspellhisname probably knows nothing of actual conventional battle, they've been using subversive tactics against others, especally israel, but have never been engaged in stand up fighting. they might have a few psycho special-ops guys, but the average iranian soldier has never shot at a target that's shot back.
compare that with the average combat experience of most US forces... let alone groups like the marines, Seals or Rangers.

there is also a diffrence in mind set in american forces that their Republican guard can't match. RG's are taught to hate their enemies, that their enemies are enemies of god, they serve a theocracy. American soldiers are taught not to hate their enemies, and not let fury guide their actions.
I've heard tales from some of the army guys I know of terrorists opening fire fuled by their hate of americans, and dying stupidly. these battles were in southern iraq of course, but the image of the US soldier putting a single shot into a terrorist who just wasted a clip firing on his position is a strong one.

[Zakharra]

  That would be my intention. Make the leadership, ALL of the leadership, civilian and military, of the nation(s) at war with us start sweating, knowing that they are among the first priority targets, not just the standard military ones.

[Callie Del Noire]

  That would be my intention. Make the leadership, ALL of the leadership, civilian and military, of the nation(s) at war with us start sweating, knowing that they are among the first priority targets, not just the standard military ones.

There is a reverse to that. Our leadership is equally culpable, and given that our foes are more given to non-traditional warfare and using asymmetric warfare tactics, it is far easier for them to get people into the US and park a car here and there. And much easier to find out where Congressmen, Senators, Cabinet members and such. Think about it. The Iranian government has for the better park of three decades directly AND covertly financed terrorist acts throughout the world and along with folks like the Libyans in setting up and training terrorist groups throughout the world. IRA, German militants, Basque Separatists, FARC, groups through out the Islamic world from the Middle East to the pacific rim.

Do not doubt for a moment that if we were to do assassination strikes on Iraqi leadership (even if it was 'valid' targets) that they wouldn't turn to these people and those they have networked with.

[Zakharra]

There is a reverse to that. Our leadership is equally culpable, and given that our foes are more given to non-traditional warfare and using asymmetric warfare tactics, it is far easier for them to get people into the US and park a car here and there. And much easier to find out where Congressmen, Senators, Cabinet members and such. Think about it. The Iranian government has for the better park of three decades directly AND covertly financed terrorist acts throughout the world and along with folks like the Libyans in setting up and training terrorist groups throughout the world. IRA, German militants, Basque Separatists, FARC, groups through out the Islamic world from the Middle East to the pacific rim.

Do not doubt for a moment that if we were to do assassination strikes on Iraqi leadership (even if it was 'valid' targets) that they wouldn't turn to these people and those they have networked with.

Who says they can't do that now and won't if they start an open war with us?  I'd expect them to use such methods if they have them, but the US and the West has shown a distinct lack of willingness to go after the national leaders they are at war with. They don't expect to fight a conventional war with us, why should we respond as if we were in a conventional war?  At least my way puts the national leaders directly in the cross hairs. Something that's been lacking in many modern wars.

A point of clarification: the assassination methods I am suggesting, I would use ONLY in an actual war. Not before one, but after an open act of war was committed against the US. To assassinate people just because they piss you off is a very bad thing and would be too tempting to use again and again.