Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (362706)	12/13/2007 7:23:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574599

Reducing the tempo of the operations of our carrier based aircraft is a long way from giving Iran a free hand. Even at the reduced tempo they can deploy a level of firepower than Iran can't easily deal with, and we would also have land based aircraft (at least if Iran was attacking tankers) and smaller surface ships and subs. The missiles give Iran new capabilities and make it more dangerous. This is a bad thing, and not something I would make light of or say is insignificant. Still the real dangers from Iran have more to do with terrorism, or mines in the gulf (which could be considered a form of terrorism). Outright air and sea battles would not go well for them, and even on land in Iraq, there real defense is not the ability to defeat an American invasion but the ability to create all sorts of insurgents and terrorists after the invasion, and also the fact that the US is busy in Iraq and Afghanistan (personally I don't think an invasion is going to happen, and I never did, I'm just discussing scenarios, I don't think open air and sea warfare is very likely either, but its a lot more likely than an invasion)