Nuke Iran

Iran would, indeed, be terribly dangerous in possession of WMD, but it's a reason to keep them from getting them, not a reason to behave the way we're afraid that they would.

If our intelligence about Iran's WMD potential is as accurate as it was with Iraq, then the intelligence of anyone who proposes premptive action against Iran is as great as--a retarded squirrel? I think that's on the SAT this year.

This is just a psychoanalytic hypothesis, but anyone who proposes a nuclear strike of any kind likely suffers from some sort of sexual dysfunction. And beats his wife when his football team loses.

I gather we are the sole righteous owners of nukes. Well, us in the US and selected friends.

The righteousness stinks, and bombs destroy both civilization and the land and history with them.

Bomb rattling is despicable, an easy answer for those who don't want to communicate.

Ironic that the first country to use nuclear weapons for a military purpose is the country that thinks nobody but them should have nuclear weapons.

What I meant to say, Intrepid.

Unfortunately for the ruling elite and their neoconservative ilk, this is not irony, it is their God-given right to possess, control who possesses, threaten with nukes, and ultimately use nucelar weapons.
How can one argue with such inherently flawed logic.

Yea...too bad when Truman made the decision he saved thousand of American and Canadian lives.

That does not make it right. We have no idea what would have happened if they did not use it. Canada was already in the war for over 2 years before America even joined the fight. Probably never would have if Japan had not attacked their navy.

I hope you didn't forget the thousands of dead, burned and maimed Japanese civilians!!

Better thousands of dead in the Japaneses military cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, than hundreds of thousands of American soldiers killed in the invasion of Japan. The Bomb ended the war promptly, and that saved not only American soldiers from the long and costly effort to subdue a nation bent on Death before Dishonor, it also saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women and children who would have perished in the final acts of a long, brutal war that Japan started.

Asherman,
Do you agree or disagree with the proposition to nuke Iran?

Armed with that kind of quasi-utilitarian logic, you could justify any war under any pretenses.

asherman wrote :
"Better thousands of dead in the Japaneses military cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, than hundreds of thousands of American soldiers killed in the invasion of Japan. The Bomb ended the war promptly, and that saved not only American soldiers from the long and costly effort to subdue a nation bent on Death before Dishonor, it also saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese men, women and children who would have perished in the final acts of a long, brutal war that Japan started. "

i certainly can't disagree with that ; unfortunately it also let the genie out of the bottle ... and i don't believe you can stuff it back in .
today it's the united states and a few other states including north-korea(!) , pakistan (!) and india (!) that possess nukes .
i have no doubt that in a few years there will be many more countries that will be in possession of nukes . from what i understand it's becoming easier all the time to assemble the parts and obtain fissionable (?) material - so how is it going to be stopped ?
i suppose one solution would be to nuke the whole world - not very palatable , is it ?
hbg

"Preparations for the test included the building of a steel tower that would suspend the bomb one hundred feet above ground. Many were apprehensive - there were concerns that the blast might launch a cataclysmic reaction in the upper atmosphere leading to world destruction. Some feared the consequences of radio-active fallout on civilian populations surrounding the test site. Still others feared the test would be an outright dud. Observers were sent to surrounding towns to monitor the results of the blast and medical teams were kept on alert.

Finally, the rains that had delayed the test for almost two weeks subsided and in the darkness of that July morning history was made.

"We were reaching into the unknown and we did not know what might come of it."
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/atomictest.htm

Whether military action is taken to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program, or not is a decision that rest entirely with the NCA. I will support that decision, whatever it might be.

However, if I were the President and responsible for the decision I would task the Joint Chiefs with devising a plan to neutralize Iran's nuclear capacity using minimum force, and with a short timeline between commencement and conclusion of the mission. The master plan would be for the use of conventional weapons delivered primarily from air and sea platforms. I would authorize preparations for a full scale conventional attack on Iran's nuclear and weapons facilities.

I would free up and redeploy our forces in Iraq eastward in the event that they would be needed on the ground there. To that end, I would turn over to the Iraqi government the primary responsiblity for combating internal terrorism. I would dispatch the Secretary of State to the PRC with instructions to assure them that our strike is limited in targets and time. Our UN Ambassador would carry an ultimatum to Iran on the floor of the General Assembly that if Iran did not verifiably halt its nuclear weapons program within two weeks, the United States would take drastic and unilateral steps to remove the threat of an Iranian Bomb to world peace. As an inducement, I would offer Iran a guarantee that the United States would come to Iran's aid and strike any aggressor responsible for a nuclear strike on Iran.

If Iran failed to comply, I would issue the orders for the mission to proceed. If there was any doubt that the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was not effective, I would consider some limited nuclear strikes on particular targets as a last resort.

If the attack were deemed successful, U.S. forces in Iraq might be drawn down as the terrorist's logistical support would have been degraded. Drawing down in the wake of the operation would hopefully defuse some of the negative blow-back in the region. I would not anticipate any active intervention in the operation by the PRC or Russia. The greatest danger, I think might be the destablization of Pakistan, so that has to be taken into account.

I'm not the President, and haven't the same level of information to help guide decision making. Whether or not to take direct action against Iran is very subjective, and POTUS could decide either way. Any decision is far more likely to be a lose-lose than a win-win situation.

I think that the plan sounds about as well thought out as Iraq was.
Iranians will surely react to an American led assault on their nation in the same way as Iraq has over the past 3 years.

On the plus side, the body bag business will continue to be booming.

.... and the danger of Iran threatening world peace with nuclear weapons will have been forestalled. The DPRK in the wake of this sort of operation might very well pull in its own horns and both the Japanese and ROK will sleep better, and we won't have to have a real life test of Star Wars technology.

Approaching the problem using the absolute minimum force necessary to achieve the objective, seems sound enough to me. If the Iranian weapons program can be halted by covert means, that would be great. If Iran would wake up and abandon its provocative nuclear program that would be best. However, if an overt but limited attack on those facilities is all that will work, then so be it. The dangers of widening the violence in Southern Asia are outweighed by demonstrating that the further proliferation of nuclear weapons will not be tolerated. The policy I've outlined is very limited in scope and duration, and does not seek regime change in Iran. Casualties would be limited during the operation, and the risk of Iran entering Iraq in force is not great. If they should decide to go into Iraq, we have forces on the ground to repel them. Iran is currently not capable of inflicting serious damage to our fleet, though that might change in a few years.

It seems entirely possible that this sort of operation might actually improve conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan by reducing Iranian supplied munitions and personnel.

Is this an "up-beat" concept? Sure it is, and a lot could go wrong. That's the case in every military operation, but in my opinion it is worth the risk to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of Iran. Probably the worst case scenario would be that Iran would continue its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and eventually might succeed in their efforts. In that event, at least we would have bought more time for the region to find equilibrium.

Will the President adopt this kind of policy that is founded on minimum force? Only the President knows and has the legal authority to set the policy and, I trust, that his decision will be a responsible one. The Joint Chiefs are responsible for designing the best plan possible, and, when ordered by the NCA, for carrying out the plan.

Are you just hungry for war?

America has yet to field test its Neutron Bom.
It is an environmentally friendly bom
with a very short half-life
( so that the oil wud not be long contaminated )
that only kills humans while leaving the real estate undisturbed.

C'mon !
We need to test this bom !

No they won't... they're just posers. You should have lunch with them. kindred spirits and all.....

Re: Are you just hungry for war?


" You don't spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. "

We proved DIFFERENTLY in Germany n Japan.
Do u deny that ?
David