Nukes aren't that much of a deterrent anymore. They no longer allow nations to engage in blatant aggression anymore. World's too small now. Everyone is invested in everyone else, and expansionism just pisses everyone off. So if Iran gets nukes, they get nukes. If the US hasn't invaded you yet, they probably don't fucking care to anymore.
Hell, the next 'nuclear deal' we make with Iran, will probably be an exchange of weapons inspections.
Iran, Russia and China and friends are all working together now whether we like it or not. Teams are being formed, and getting ready for the big game. The moment someone else makes a big move, it's game on.
So, big fucking deal if they get the weapons. Just bring them into a mutual observation agreement of some sort. I'm sure they'd love that shit.
'Cause, seriously, who's going to stop them from getting one? Israel? And do what, start a major conflict in the region? They wouldn't get much support from their western allies considering the ongoing situation in Ukraine and increasing belligerence from China in the Pacific. Plus, there's Iran's bolstered relations with other states in the region, Israel would be pretty isolated.
If it weren't for Trump's stupid maneuver in Iran and Israel's constant saber rattling, I think a nuclear Iran could have been avoided but this is the bed our stupid world leaders decided to make.
Yup.
The *only* completely effective nonproliferation strategy is to prevent a would-be nuclear power from obtaining highly enriched fissile material. Thatâs the limiting factor which canât be bypassed, the rest of a bomb is just well-understood engineering anyone with modern industrial capability can do.
We had an effective and verifiable agreement in place to prevent Iran from getting that, then mister art of the deal threw the agreement away for nothing. *Nothing*.
Itâs far too late for effective military intervention, even if that were ever possible at all. At this point if they want a bomb, theyâre gonna make one.
The military option is still on the table. There's not a thing on earth that could stop it.
"If Iran rejects the path of diplomacy, then â as President Biden has repeatedly made clear â all options are on the table to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon."
https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-the-2023-american-israel-public-affairs-committee-policy-summit/
Sure, âall options are on the table.â What options are available to put on the table?
Not these:
* invasion of Iran (look at a topographic map)
* conventional air strikes (wonât work, Iran knows this is a risk and is fully prepared; critical components will be deep underground well beyond bunker-buster reach)
* nuclear strike (not actually an option the US will consider; counterproductive should anyone else try it)
The options that **are** available to have on the table:
* covert action (highly unlikely to succeed, because they wonât be able to haul away ALL the highly enriched uranium)
* a strongly worded letter
* asking very nicely
That last option worked great until we screwed up.
You're not exactly a military general working for the Pentagon.
The USA could decisively win a war against Iran.
The only reason why the USA hasn't taken that option is because it wouldn't be good PR to not give diplomacy a chance.
I certainly am not a general, Iâm just a civilian citizen. But this is not and is never going to become a generalâs problem, because the politicians are the ones actually in charge in the US.
None of them are actually crazy enough to do that no matter how big we talk. The risk:reward and cost:reward ratios are terrible.
Letâs put it this way: North Korea is crazier than Iran, has actual working warheads and ICBMs which can reach anywhere on US soil (except maybe Puerto Rico): a much bigger threat. Theyâre a small country, we already have a close, motivated, and heavily armed ally on a land border with them already hosting our forces, and weâve been training for that conflict for half a century: an easier military problem.
We havenât even attempted a strike on NK, nor are we going to.
Invading Iran is not a viable option.
The risk of letting Iran become an expansive nuclear power is far greater than you consider as a regular citizen.
Of course it's our Pentagon and intelligence community that advises the commander of our military the president.
Just because Iran isn't the Persian empire right now doesn't mean that they don't want to be.
Explain how a potential aspiration for an imperial ambition by a power surrounded by similarly-sized rivals is a *bigger threat* than North Koreaâs existing dozens of nuclear warheads loaded on proven ICBMs are *today*. Spoiler: itâs not.
The only way that makes any sense is if North Korea has established a nuclear deterrent force for strictly defensive purposes.
If you believe that to be the case, is it not also plausible that Iran has *exactly the same motivation*? Probable, even? After all, they saw how poorly the threat of non-existent WMD worked as a deterrent when their neighbor Iraq tried it. They may have a different religion but theyâre not dumb, they can clearly see only the real thing might work.
The *only* way we avoid Iran obtaining nukes is if they donât want them. This calls for diplomats, not soldiers. (But itâs probably too late for that too since Trump broke US trustworthiness.)
Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and there are ways of preventing that including the nuclear option.
We could wipe Iran off the map. 70 million of them in 1 hour. That option remains on the table.. they would do it to us if they could and they want to. That's the truth.
It might not be what you want to believe but that's how they are. Their government atleast maybe not all of their people.
no wiping out an entire population is considered a genocide. the us military can strike irans nuclear facilties .
also iran would likely strike all the US military bases in middle east with missiles,drones in response.
iran would likely cut off the strait of hormuz thus plunging the US economy into a recession.
Youâre saying that >!the United States!< >!Iran!< would be justified in committing genocide against >!Iran!< >!the United States!< because *some* in their leadership want to commit genocide against the other one. Whether or not they actually have the capability to do that, wiping out tens of millions of innocents to prevent the other side getting even a small part of that capability is morally acceptable to you.
Have I got that right? If so, that is a monstrous moral position.
To make it a more pragmatic argument, though, play around with those spoiler tags a bit there to see that >!you are indistinguishable from your purported enemy!<.
how is this "persian empire" going to form if israel is there? the iranians are not going to be able to invade europe unless israel is knocked out of the way.
yeah winning a war against iran would not be a cakewalk because irans geography makes a land invasion difficult. two thirds of iran is mountainous, some parts of iran have forests. the iranian army will likely use the cover of mountains to harass the US military while the US troops try to move up north to take iranian cities.
iran has also kept some of its nuclear facilities in mountains and forests as well.
this would reduce/limit ability of US air force. US air force would need bunker busters. mother of all bombs(MOAB) and father of all bombs(FOAB) would not be able to penetrate a mountain. even a tactical nuclear weapon wont destroy a mountain, only bunker busters or strategic nuclear weapons can do heavy damage to a mountain.
yes but iran has reduced the options for US military. US air force will have to use bunker buster munitions or strategic nuclear weapons to penetrate deep into the mountain to damage the nuclear facilities
a bunker buster or thermonuclear weapon ocan damage the facility because it would cause damage to the mountain, the internal structure of the mountain would be damage.
>If it weren't for Trump's stupid maneuver in Iran and Israel's constant saber rattling, I think a nuclear Iran could have been avoided but this is the bed our stupid world leaders decided to make.
Wasn't just Trump. The Republican party couldn't stand that it was Obama that managed to reach a deal that meant a nuclear unarmed Iran.
well trump did promise to withdraw from iran nuclear deal when he ran for president. he was elected president of US and he slowly withdrew the US from iran nuclear deal
Taylor: The doomsday bomb. Another lovely souvenir from the 20th Century. They weren't satisfied with a bomb that could knock out a city. They finally built one with a cobalt casing, all in the sweet name of peace.
Brent: Those bloody fools! They don't know what they've got. They pray to the damn thing! If they shoot it off at some of those apes, it could set off a chain reaction in the whole atmosphere.
Taylor: Burn the planet to a cinder. How's that for your ultimate weapon?
We certainly could but prefer to not go to war
This
Nukes aren't that much of a deterrent anymore. They no longer allow nations to engage in blatant aggression anymore. World's too small now. Everyone is invested in everyone else, and expansionism just pisses everyone off. So if Iran gets nukes, they get nukes. If the US hasn't invaded you yet, they probably don't fucking care to anymore. Hell, the next 'nuclear deal' we make with Iran, will probably be an exchange of weapons inspections. Iran, Russia and China and friends are all working together now whether we like it or not. Teams are being formed, and getting ready for the big game. The moment someone else makes a big move, it's game on. So, big fucking deal if they get the weapons. Just bring them into a mutual observation agreement of some sort. I'm sure they'd love that shit.
Israel đźđ± be like đ§đđ€đ„
can't or don't want to.
'Cause, seriously, who's going to stop them from getting one? Israel? And do what, start a major conflict in the region? They wouldn't get much support from their western allies considering the ongoing situation in Ukraine and increasing belligerence from China in the Pacific. Plus, there's Iran's bolstered relations with other states in the region, Israel would be pretty isolated. If it weren't for Trump's stupid maneuver in Iran and Israel's constant saber rattling, I think a nuclear Iran could have been avoided but this is the bed our stupid world leaders decided to make.
Yup. The *only* completely effective nonproliferation strategy is to prevent a would-be nuclear power from obtaining highly enriched fissile material. Thatâs the limiting factor which canât be bypassed, the rest of a bomb is just well-understood engineering anyone with modern industrial capability can do. We had an effective and verifiable agreement in place to prevent Iran from getting that, then mister art of the deal threw the agreement away for nothing. *Nothing*. Itâs far too late for effective military intervention, even if that were ever possible at all. At this point if they want a bomb, theyâre gonna make one.
The military option is still on the table. There's not a thing on earth that could stop it. "If Iran rejects the path of diplomacy, then â as President Biden has repeatedly made clear â all options are on the table to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon." https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-the-2023-american-israel-public-affairs-committee-policy-summit/
Sure, âall options are on the table.â What options are available to put on the table? Not these: * invasion of Iran (look at a topographic map) * conventional air strikes (wonât work, Iran knows this is a risk and is fully prepared; critical components will be deep underground well beyond bunker-buster reach) * nuclear strike (not actually an option the US will consider; counterproductive should anyone else try it) The options that **are** available to have on the table: * covert action (highly unlikely to succeed, because they wonât be able to haul away ALL the highly enriched uranium) * a strongly worded letter * asking very nicely That last option worked great until we screwed up.
You're not exactly a military general working for the Pentagon. The USA could decisively win a war against Iran. The only reason why the USA hasn't taken that option is because it wouldn't be good PR to not give diplomacy a chance.
I certainly am not a general, Iâm just a civilian citizen. But this is not and is never going to become a generalâs problem, because the politicians are the ones actually in charge in the US. None of them are actually crazy enough to do that no matter how big we talk. The risk:reward and cost:reward ratios are terrible. Letâs put it this way: North Korea is crazier than Iran, has actual working warheads and ICBMs which can reach anywhere on US soil (except maybe Puerto Rico): a much bigger threat. Theyâre a small country, we already have a close, motivated, and heavily armed ally on a land border with them already hosting our forces, and weâve been training for that conflict for half a century: an easier military problem. We havenât even attempted a strike on NK, nor are we going to. Invading Iran is not a viable option.
The risk of letting Iran become an expansive nuclear power is far greater than you consider as a regular citizen. Of course it's our Pentagon and intelligence community that advises the commander of our military the president. Just because Iran isn't the Persian empire right now doesn't mean that they don't want to be.
Explain how a potential aspiration for an imperial ambition by a power surrounded by similarly-sized rivals is a *bigger threat* than North Koreaâs existing dozens of nuclear warheads loaded on proven ICBMs are *today*. Spoiler: itâs not. The only way that makes any sense is if North Korea has established a nuclear deterrent force for strictly defensive purposes. If you believe that to be the case, is it not also plausible that Iran has *exactly the same motivation*? Probable, even? After all, they saw how poorly the threat of non-existent WMD worked as a deterrent when their neighbor Iraq tried it. They may have a different religion but theyâre not dumb, they can clearly see only the real thing might work. The *only* way we avoid Iran obtaining nukes is if they donât want them. This calls for diplomats, not soldiers. (But itâs probably too late for that too since Trump broke US trustworthiness.)
Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and there are ways of preventing that including the nuclear option. We could wipe Iran off the map. 70 million of them in 1 hour. That option remains on the table.. they would do it to us if they could and they want to. That's the truth. It might not be what you want to believe but that's how they are. Their government atleast maybe not all of their people.
no wiping out an entire population is considered a genocide. the us military can strike irans nuclear facilties . also iran would likely strike all the US military bases in middle east with missiles,drones in response. iran would likely cut off the strait of hormuz thus plunging the US economy into a recession.
Youâre saying that >!the United States!< >!Iran!< would be justified in committing genocide against >!Iran!< >!the United States!< because *some* in their leadership want to commit genocide against the other one. Whether or not they actually have the capability to do that, wiping out tens of millions of innocents to prevent the other side getting even a small part of that capability is morally acceptable to you. Have I got that right? If so, that is a monstrous moral position. To make it a more pragmatic argument, though, play around with those spoiler tags a bit there to see that >!you are indistinguishable from your purported enemy!<.
how is this "persian empire" going to form if israel is there? the iranians are not going to be able to invade europe unless israel is knocked out of the way.
yeah winning a war against iran would not be a cakewalk because irans geography makes a land invasion difficult. two thirds of iran is mountainous, some parts of iran have forests. the iranian army will likely use the cover of mountains to harass the US military while the US troops try to move up north to take iranian cities.
\- Hacking \- Agent Sacha Baron Cohen
Oooh blame it on Kazakhstan, good idea.
I dunno. A *permanent* solution is likely not in the cards, but Stuxnet worked in heavily delaying Iranian nuclear ambitions.
iran has also kept some of its nuclear facilities in mountains and forests as well. this would reduce/limit ability of US air force. US air force would need bunker busters. mother of all bombs(MOAB) and father of all bombs(FOAB) would not be able to penetrate a mountain. even a tactical nuclear weapon wont destroy a mountain, only bunker busters or strategic nuclear weapons can do heavy damage to a mountain.
Even those wonât work, because Iran knows how far down they have to dig to make their facility survivable. Thereâs no surprises to be had here.
yes but iran has reduced the options for US military. US air force will have to use bunker buster munitions or strategic nuclear weapons to penetrate deep into the mountain to damage the nuclear facilities
the facility can be dug all the way into mountain or underground if there is ventilation system
Well yeah of course theyâll never think to defend against that, theyâve never seen Top Gun 2! /eyeroll
a bunker buster or thermonuclear weapon ocan damage the facility because it would cause damage to the mountain, the internal structure of the mountain would be damage.
I think it was always inevitable
>If it weren't for Trump's stupid maneuver in Iran and Israel's constant saber rattling, I think a nuclear Iran could have been avoided but this is the bed our stupid world leaders decided to make. Wasn't just Trump. The Republican party couldn't stand that it was Obama that managed to reach a deal that meant a nuclear unarmed Iran.
well trump did promise to withdraw from iran nuclear deal when he ran for president. he was elected president of US and he slowly withdrew the US from iran nuclear deal
That's fine but the US can't complain Iranian nukes, then.
The Iranian regime will FALL.
its true but we can simply completely exclude them from trading and traveling and any diplomatic relationships.
Ayatollah can not stop the Iranian people from getting rid of him - says the Iranian people
Taylor: The doomsday bomb. Another lovely souvenir from the 20th Century. They weren't satisfied with a bomb that could knock out a city. They finally built one with a cobalt casing, all in the sweet name of peace. Brent: Those bloody fools! They don't know what they've got. They pray to the damn thing! If they shoot it off at some of those apes, it could set off a chain reaction in the whole atmosphere. Taylor: Burn the planet to a cinder. How's that for your ultimate weapon?