terpfan1980 terpfan1980

Should the west nuke Iran 'til it glows?

▼

Should the west nuke Iran 'til it glows?

from JoeUser Forums
In the current news cycles, we have articles in the Telegraph (U.K. news) with the blaring headline: Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'

Never mind that we haven't had the requisite number of Joe Wilsons and other loony liberals saying it's a bad idea, and that the intel we'd be using is faulty and wrong. This time, as noted in that article, and elsewhere, there's a fairly well acknowledged set of facts that indicate that we KNOW for cretain that Iran is chasing after nuclear weapons and won't give up until they have them. Actually, not just that, but once they have, will most likely use them on Israel, a country they have repeatedly stated should be wiped off the face of the Earth.

The question is what should be done about Iran?

The article linked above talks about some of the possibilities, and we've also seen news recently that if we do go after Iran, they'll start a Jihad, or join into the existing ones, against the West and will of course turn to terrorism to accomplish their goals.

So, I leave it up to the readers and other commenters, at least for now, to tell me what they think we really should be doing about Iran. Should we nuke them until they glow? Make their research sites, and surrounding areas, uninhabitable for years to come? Should we go after their leadership and attempt to take out their command and control structures via the next great shock and awe attack?

What's the right solution, and if you think it differs, what is the best solution? You tell me please, and after a while, I'll offer my thoughts.
politics
9,106 views 28 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most course of action will have both positive and negative consequences. In the case of Iran and their nuclear weapons development the truth is that there could be major consequences both positive and negative for some courses of action. The objective I would select is to prevent weapons development without creating a firestorm with the Moslem world and endeavor to achieve support for my course of action from the non-Moslem countries.

My first choice would be to support the reprocessing of uranium by Russia with the agree by Iraq that they would STOP their own attempt to develop weapons grade material.

This option has several advantages:

It brings Russia into the solution that already has a profitable relationship with Iran.

It allows the Iranians to have the fuel they claim they need for power plants.

It is the best way to limit Iran from producing weapons grade material.

It DOES NOT involve direct U S intervention.

My second choice would be work with all parties to use all non military options to prevent Iraq from acquiring material from which they could create a nuclear bomb while developing a contingency for Non-Nuclear air strikes to attack Iran nuclear weapons and research sites.

This option has some good and bad consequences

Conventional munitions may be only partially effective and may require repeated attacks on the same target to penetrate the hardened sites.

There would be the risk of collateral damage to civilian areas and would stir up unrest among both the Iranians and other Moslem countries.

In no event would I employ nuclear munitions against Iran unless we were attacked and it was in retaliation.

We should accelerate the large format laser anti-missile system as en effective way to destroy any weapons directed against the United States or our allies.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmmm, the C.O.L. makes an appearance. It seems he mixes up Iran and Iraq in his comments at least once, and he also mentions accelerating a program that many have seen as a big money pit with no guarantees of success (anti-missile system), but I'm sure he'll just talk about raising taxes to pay for it since we can't deficit spend in his world....

Too bad anti-missile shields won't stop briefcase style bombs or other delivery systems either....
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't believe we should use nukes to stop Iran. I see way to many consiquences with the use of nukes. I think this would be over kill. I have to believe we have good enough weapons to do a strike, if necesary, that could do a lot of damage, enough to reach the goal. But I also believe we should get everyone else in on this, I believe that putting Iran against the ropes with everyone staring them down could make them think twice. But that's just me.

Hmmm, the C.O.L. makes an appearance. It seems he mixes up Iran and Iraq in his comments at least once


Twice actually, but who's counting?

and he also mentions accelerating a program that many have seen as a big money pit with no guarantees of success (anti-missile system),


Well you know him, waste money on his terms not the Presidents. He talks about these people as if they have used the military to threaten the world. WE are talking about terrorist, these people try to conceal their weapons to attack. Missiles are not a weapon of choice for terrorist so I don't see what wasting more money on a useless tech would do when the bombs go off without any missiles being fired.

but I'm sure he'll just talk about raising taxes to pay for it since we can't deficit spend in his world....


Yes, we should pay to waste more money. Forget about not wasting money at all, we should keep spending and we should keep paying for that money spent.