• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Would Attacking Iran Be Worth It?

Thunder

Banned
T
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
34,918
No sane person wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon or the ability to produce one. But most experts agree that inorder to effectively ruin Iran's nuclear capabilities we would have to strike multiple targets, some of which are deep under ground.

Even if it was possible to destroy every single bit of their nuclear program (which most doubt), Iran would surely retaliate by attacking Israel, attacking American forces in Iraq, and maybe even launching terror attacks in the USA. They can't make nukes yet..but they surely can make lots of dirty bombs.

So, is destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities worth war? I guess some would say its better to face dirty bombs and conventional attacks, then an actual nuclear weapon in New York City.

Tough decisions are upon us in the next year or two.
 
The US has already staged enough firepower off their coast to turn Iran into a giant parabolic mirror, so it is possible to destroy every bit of their program. But at what cost?

If Iran continues on it's current path and starts building nuclear weapons, stronger urging would be in order.
 
parky76 said:
Iran would surely retaliate by attacking Israel, attacking American forces in Iraq, and maybe even launching terror attacks in the USA.
Click to expand...
All of those options are suicidal. Not that I think Iran isn't willing to commit national suicide, but they won't do it with so little return. Once they get a nuke, maybe they'll think wiping out Israel is worth it.
 
knot said:
Lol. Anyway, how about just destroying the nutcase behind the helm.
Click to expand...
If you think the nutcase is their current President, he's not at the helm. The Mullahs are at the helm, Ahmadinejad is simply a mouthpiece and a figurehead.
 
Hmmm, I'm not sure that attacking Iran would be a good idea. Militarily it would not offer much more of a fight than Iraq in Gulf War I (not the current one), but the issue would be the lost of oil production, and Russia and China being a little annoyed at this.

I think an economic or political compromise would probably be better.

Cheers,
TGHO
 
I think an economic or political compromise would probably be better.
Click to expand...

This is true, however, there are those radicals out there who don't want anything the US/UN could put on the table.
 
Worth it? Who can say for sure. More than one scenario could play out in the future.

1) Iran goes unchecked. Iran develops nukes. Iran launches nukes into heart of Israel. Hindsight: Preemptive preventive measures would have been worth it.

2) Iran goes unchecked. Iran develops uranium for sole purpose of powering robust industrial growth. Hindsight: Preemptive measures waste of US tax $$.

3) Iran goes unchecked. Iran develops tactical nuclear weapons. Iran sells weapons to terrorist cell. Terrorist cell manages to strike US target from Mexico. Hindsight: Preemptive measures worth the effort.

No one can say for sure. Do we leave them alone and let them continue on their current path, defying UN sanctions, and hope they make sound decisions in the future when the have a nuclear arsenal?

I vote, no.
 
Some truisms...

Remember, it's not what they say but what they do.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Prevention is better than cure.
 
cloudshipsrule said:
The US has already staged enough firepower off their coast to turn Iran into a giant parabolic mirror, so it is possible to destroy every bit of their program.
Click to expand...

Nope, you do not understand the size of Iran and the limitations of conventional weapons.

The firepower "to turn Iran into a parabolic mirrir" resides in the ICBM silos, and in the SSBN's missile tubes. What is off the coast can merely wreck a few Iranian cities and military installations, as well as perhaps rubbling some nuclear facilities.

ETA: to parky76

Attacking Iran is a poor idea, both politically and practically. This is no secret.

DR
 
parky76 said:
No sane person wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon or the ability to produce one.
Click to expand...

You are of the opinion then that;
1. Iran has a nuclear weapons programme
and
2. That every single person in any way involved with it is certifiably insane?

Have you considered the possibility you may be in error?
 
I think the risk of Iran having a nuke in the future is too great to worry about what will happen now. First, Iran is already supposedly attacking Americans with "insurgents" in Iraq. And I find it doubtful that their attack on Israel would go unchecked by them.

Outside of Iran possibly lobbin some missiles into Israel, I don't find how they can do any more damage to the U.S. I mean to say they will try to strike the U.S. with a terrorist attack is a feeble argument. Every radical out there is trying that.

I say we calibrate our nukes on Iran or revive the WW2 strategy of leveling a country from one corner to the other. It may not get their underground facilities, but if no one is left to use them who care.
 
"No, no for Satan. No, no for America. No, no for the occupation. No, no for Israel," Al-Sadr chanted in a call and response with the audience at the start of his speech.
Click to expand...
The message is:
1,America and Israel are labeled as Satan, therefor the prime targets now;
2,Putting the Islamic differences aside for a while, turning into another Taliban cooperating with Laden?
3,Iran is looking for outside enemies to turn its inside problems away, so they will not stopping asking for more untill you just can not afford;
 
MilwaukeeMike said:
I say we calibrate our nukes on Iran or revive the WW2 strategy of leveling a country from one corner to the other. It may not get their underground facilities, but if no one is left to use them who care.
Click to expand...
Um... what countries did we level from corner to corner during WWII?
 
parky76 said:
So, is destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities worth war? I guess some would say its better to face dirty bombs and conventional attacks, then an actual nuclear weapon in New York City.

Tough decisions are upon us in the next year or two.
Click to expand...
It definitely worth war if we can control the mess after the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom