news.bbc.co.uk — US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned. It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
Feb 19, 2007 View in Crawl 4
cpuenvyFeb 20, 2007
Thanks. The reason is because these kinds of people cannot argue with pure fact, they have to get their information from the media, moveon.org, etc. They cannot debate with the facts, it makes them run. The scary thing is that these are the folks that are shaping the current political climate.
bootz52Feb 20, 2007
Hypothetically, if we do attack Iran, our government is f**king crazy.
gazzonyxFeb 21, 2007
Here's an illustration - I'm an intern computer consultant; my major is software development, but I ended up at a place where I do mostly system administration. Anyways, although slightly out-of-scope for me, I'm an all around geek, so I can switch roles accordingly. Sorry for the primer, just wanted to state my background.Anyways, I work at a small company (less than 25 employees) and part of my job as the server/network administrator is security. Most of my users are guilty of a PEBKAC at least once a week - not a threat. But, while working on securing the server, I have to assume that they are going to try to break in. I have to assume that my line to the internet is just as hostile (if not more so), and I have to isolate traffic from both sides and assume that 'they're all out to get me'. This includes running scenarios in my head of what happens if Steve over in shipping is fired and decides that he wants to delete the database or the address list. I have to assume that the office manager will try to escalate her account, or that one of the office girls will unknowingly get a virus or spyware, or that someone will come in from the outside with a laptop and try to access the network as a guest, or use rainbow tables to crack user passwords. The point is that I spend parts of my day sometimes dreaming up any possibility of 'worst case scenarios' and deciding how I would isolate and contain that incident. I have to put in the safeguards for everything from spyware to the '2 moves to check mate' where my server is the only computer that I trust on the network, and harden is accordingly. Why? Because it's my job - if something stupid went wrong and I didn't have a contingency plan, I would be negligent and without an excuse. The government is no different. Their job is to dream up every scenario from every point of view and say, with a high level of confidence, "I've thought of that, and I already have an emergency plan. This is what our weak point is going to be... This is what needs to be done... These are the resources that I'll need to leverage to pull it off... And this is what will need to be done afterwords..." Anything less than that is completely unacceptable in my eyes. In fact, I'm sure that they have plans for how to take care of their own citizens should the need arise. As a US citizen, I understand that they don't know me and it's not personal, but I could be a threat. And I would be angry if I were to find that, in my own best interest, they didn't have a plan if a good portion of my state decided to rebel.You have to plan security as if everything were a very real threat, otherwise it may become one; and at that time "I didn't think that scenario was of concern" is not an acceptable answer.I'd rather like an opposing point of view, if I've overlooked or ignored something.O.K. - got my flame retardant underwear on. Feel free to flame.
Closed AccountFeb 21, 2007
The mood in the middle east has been very sour lately, and we're just making it, barely. Any attack on Iran would cause the tide to turn in an instant, and we'd see hell on earth. All Iran has to do is mobilize their network of sympathesizers and fundamentalists around the world, western interests can say goodbye.
ewokninjaFeb 21, 2007
I think the issue is that there are far more carrier groups over there than what would be needed for just hypothetical attack plans. Instead of just talking about it, they are putting the resources in place to actually do it.
sterkenFeb 21, 2007
"I'm sorry guys, are you saying the USA has never funded terrorism?"Wow, I didn't see him say that anywhere. Don't accuse the poster of hypocrisy since he never implied nor said anything of the sort. But it says a lot about how you perceive things. You just can't wait to get on your moral high-horse, can you?I agree with you otherwise, your attitude just sucks.
cphuntington97Mar 9, 2007
Yes, I am kidding. You gotta ask the tough questions.