The problem with taking out Irans nuclear sites

[NNN0LHI]

We can take some out. Real good I would imagine. But they will build them back. And maybe we can take them out again someday.

But one thing is for sure. One of these days Iran will have nuclear weapons no matter what we do.

What happens then? After we have previously been bombing their country what happens when they do finally get nuclear weapons?

I know what the USA would do if America was the one who got bombed by another country and then we finally got a hold of some nukes. We would use them. Hell we have before. Twice.

So there is the problem.

Don

[wakeme2008]

1. Finding the sites are the problem

Iran gets CNN and Fox news and watched the start of the Iraq War and listened to the military talking heads. IMHO Bush and Cheney ASSUME that Iran is not smart enough to hide their activity from another Shock and Awe.

[neoblues]

13. If Republicans were unleashed...

and did what they'd really like to do, finding the sites wouldn't be so difficult... after all, if you're not sure where they are, just be sure that we cover all the possibilities. One can assume that all their nuclear sites would have a roadway nearby or have a building on the premesis? It's easy, just vaporize every sign of human activity across the whole of Iran... and like Israel flattened Lebanon, not to harm the inhabitants, but to hit Hizbullah and their missiles, so too we aren't seeking to harm Iranians, merely their nuclear program--if a few people just happened to get hurt when we turned the entire surface of the country to molten glass, well, that's unfortunate (though it might help reduce Iran's involvment in terrorism). :sarcasm:

Of course, if the U.S. ever cut loose on a country in such a ways as to entirely depopulate it... the consequences would be unimaginable. But unimaginable might be tolerable to Republicans. I don't know, maybe I'm misjudging them--perhaps they'd settle for only causing a few million dead civilians or "collateral damage". One think I do know--we could never, ever invade and occupy Iran without completely and totally expending every resource we have and thereby perfectly destroying any hope for a bright future in America. Unfortunately, it really is within the realm of possibility that Bush & Co, are just foolish enough to do it anyway.

Iran is an up and coming power in both the region and the world, whether we like it or not. They have immense oil wealth--which is going to be continuing to increase in value for the forseeable future. That means other major world powers will be happy to make any kind of deal Iran wants--and they won't hesitate a moment just because it will screw U.S. plans. We might have a chance to delay their pursuit of nukes, but we won't stop them--and we can't stop them--not by ourselves anyway. The only military option that will stop them is against International Law and Convention as well as being as totally unacceptable morally as it's possible to be. However, reality can force the taking of otherwise immoral acts--but it should, no, it must be the absolute last resort (and not even then unless it's truly catastrophic otherwise). Nothing short of incontrovertible evidence the Iran provided nuclear bombs to terrorists who then detonated those weapons against a major population center would begin to justify the kind of military response that would be sufficient.

It's a case of dealing with another that won't stop and cannot be stopped short of an overwhelming response--approaching genocide. Partial action will just aggravate the situation and require further action. It (a military approach) is just not a viable possibility... Yet our current leaders cannot seem to consider the words "negotiation" or "diplomacy".
Meanwhile, we have a lunatic who actually has nuclear bombs, who is developing an ICBM (something we cannot hope to stop--missile defense is an unfortunate joke, and will be for a long, long time). This guy is probably even more likely to be willing to attack us that way. Ahmadinejad is crazy, but crazy like a fox too--and knows he represents millions of people; he'll think twice before using a nuke against us because he knows what we would do in retalliation. Dear Leader (Kim Jong-il, not Dumbya) has only himself to stop him--and he's a loon--he couldn't care less about his 'people' (they are his to do with as he pleases). I know which one would worry me more--and Iran doesn't have any weapons yet. No, we can't ignore them and we can't waste any opportunity to prevent them from continuing to move up this path... but we cannot do it alone.

Mr. Bush, for the sake of all Americans and the future--find some allied acquaintences who will help--don't try doing it by yourself! We know you want to be a "Transitional" President--who presides over a sea-change in America, but this isn't the kind of legacy you want. It won't work the way you think. It won't work the way you've been told. Stop, think, don't act aggressively (repeat). If you won't do it for us, do it for "the Twins"...

[The_Warmth]

2. The other problem is...

when has this administration ever shown foresight?

[Monkeyman]

3. What about the fallout our troops would be exposed plus the people of Iran

[Selatius]

4. If we attack Iran, we will provoke a world war with the big powers

Both China and Russia will retaliate through indirect means to hurt the US if we begin attacking Iran. The US will be attacked all over the region as Iranian agents and Iranian sympathizers retaliate. Oil prices will shoot past 100 dollars as oil tankers are on fire in the Persian Gulf as the Iranians shoot it out with US naval ships. China will dump US dollars and slam the US economy at a time when it's slammed by exploding gas prices.

We will enter a world of shit if Bush does it. The world will embargo us and ultimately shun us like we're the Soviet Union.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

9. Yes...

... and don't forget the new anti-ship missile systems, at least 7 of them, stationed in the coastal mountains of Iran. The US Navy's Aegis system is unable to defend against them.

[WinkyDink]

12. Which would mean we'd have to REALLY bomb the world.

It's not like we could sit by and be destroyed economically.

Yeah, Bush done good.

[Sapere aude]

5. What nuclear sites? They don't have a nuclear weapons capability at

this time. My feeling is that they are suckering us into a war that will hurt us more than any of us can know.

We lived with Russia and China for 4 decades who had missiles and planes aimed at our cities. Why can't we not fight a war with a country that doesn't even have a minute fraction of the potential we faced in the cold war?

This war talk is even more crazy then the Iraq war talk in 2002!

[Karenina]

10. Don't be fooled by the bait and switch

The REAL TARGET is Iran's infrastructure, particularly the parts that support its ability to set up a Bourse able to trade OIL for currencies other than petrodollars...

[oblivious]

6. Israel's bombing of Osirak in 1981 started Iraq on a serious nuke program

The IAEA confirmed that before the bombing Iraq was adhering to the NPT and cooperated with IAEA inspectors, and also that no weapons were beng produced at Osirak.

After the bombing Iraq started a serious nuclear weapons program.

Unfortunately bombs and missiles are all the US and Israel have and they don't seem to be able to think beyond that. But if Israel ran out of bombs after a few weeks of pounding part of a tiny country to rubble, one wonders how they could even consider bombing a country as large as Iran. And didn't the US run out of bombs and missiles not too long after shock and awe in March 2003?

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle.

This is all bluster & bullshit. Pakistan has them, they are one of the worst overtly terrorist supporting places in the world. It's only a matter of time before somebody uses one of those god damned things again.

[KoKo]

8. Did all of you DU'ers see this Good Read?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2792756

[BootinUp]

11. I hope you don't think that concerns

the neocons too much. They would laugh and mumble something about over 100 years. Then they would say we have to stop them now while we have the chance! Even if it means establishing air superiority and no fly zones like we did in Iraq! Take out their defenses! arg arg arg.