War! The fear mongering is here, again!

The only way to make the Persians surrender would be an air campaign of such magnitude that enormous civilian casualties would result. You have, of course, already stipulated the stupidity of such a program. I would also ask you where you think we could base the resources to carry out such an air campaign. Iraq, the Gulf states, Afghanistan--i don't think so. It would invite terrorist attacks on a grand scale. I feel fairly certain that Turkey would not cooperate, and i feel just as certain that the former Soviet states in the region would no cooperate. Do you think it could be done from carriers alone? Do you have any idea what it would cost to do the operation that way, without even considering our casualties?

Don't doubt for a moment that the Revolutionary Guard has thoroughly studied that war.

Yes, I think continous bombardment of Iran would eventually result in them surrendering and I think our casualties would be very low. That very scenario is why they want the bomb. One A-bomb takes out a carrier group. Without it, they have absolutely no defense against a carrier group working a hundred miles away. As long as the US can sit a carrier or three offshore and run bombing missions at will with minimal risk, there will be some in the US who see that as a valid option. As for a country willing to let us use their facilities I'm sure Israel would offer up some airfields and I'm not so sure that the US couldn't buy off some former Soviet states. They did for Iraq.

It's a stupid idea from start to finish.

A mile away so you are giving them large hydrogen bombs and not fusion bombs in the 50 k range?

You are also giving them bombs small enough to fit on missiles and missiles able to track a fast moving carrier group?

All this with them knowing that they would crease to be a nation shortly after they did any harm to naval ships using nukes?

From the WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577096851732704524.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Excerpts:

Quote:

Without doubt, Iran has long wanted nuclear weapons—to deter American intervention in its and neighboring territories; to threaten Europe and thereby cleave it from American interests in the Middle East; to respond to the former Iraqi nuclear effort; to counter the contiguous nuclear presences in Pakistan, Russia and the U.S. in the Gulf; to neutralize Israel's nuclear deterrent so as to limit it to the attrition of conventional battle, or to destroy it with one lucky shot; to lead the Islamic world; to correct the security imbalance with Saudi Arabia, which aided by geography and American arms now outclasses it; and to threaten the U.S. directly.

Although this is an opinion piece, you'll note that this explanation for why Iran seeks nukes is comprehensive and quite objective. It doesn't shy away from Israeli nukes or US presence in the Gulf. You'll also note it does not include "to save the Palestinians from Israeli oppression," or even "to help the Palestinians secure their own state," or "to help the Palestinians to overrun Israel."
Iran's ambition to be a nuclear power in the Middle East has nothing to do with the plight (real or imagined) of Palestinians.

Predictions are always a dicey proposition.

One can predict that Iran will never actually use a nuke, if obtained, but if Israel and the US prevent them from ever obtaining one, the prediction remains untested, and the seer can maintain it would have been so.

In any case while the fear of Iranian's actually using a nuke is legitimate, it's not the only reason for preventing them obtaining one.

As engineer has noted, with a nuke, Iran will be able to get away with all sorts of mischief, and the West will have to pull up short from spanking them. I understand why the Iranian theocracy would want to so hamstring the West, but I'm not a neutral observer. I'm convinced Iran is up to no good, and I want the West to be able to spank them if they got too far. I really couldn't care less whether or not is logical that the Iranians are seeking nukes. It was logical for Hitler, the Soviets and the North Koreans to seek nukes.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm a citizen of the US with historical and cultural roots in the West. I'm not about to sit back in the perceived safety of my living room, sipping Cab and trying to impress my friends with "Who are we to tell the Iranians what they can and cannot do?"

I want America to dominate the world. It's good for me, my family, my friends and just about everyone I know. I'm comforted by the fact that unlike other dominating world powers, we have considerable influence over how it's done.

And you know what? Most of you would agree with me the minute you perceived your ass and the asses of your family and friends were threatened.
Unfortunately, many of you feel so safe, you can't perceive real threats, unless a gun is pointed at your head.

When that happens, 99.99% of you will find your inner neo-con.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm a citizen of the US with historical and cultural roots in the West. I'm not about to sit back in the perceived safety of my living room, sipping Cab and trying to impress my friends with "Who are we to tell the Iranians what they can and cannot do?"

I want America to dominate the world. It's good for me, my family, my friends and just about everyone I know. I'm comforted by the fact that unlike other dominating world powers, we have considerable influence over how it's done.

how is attaching a bomb to a scientist's car and detonating it in public that much different from flying an airplane into a building