Iran Catch-All | IRAN WAR

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 121K
  • Politics 
I said it earlier, but Israel is highly capable of defending itself without direct US military help. Thanks in large part to us, as well as their own efforts, Israel is easily one of the most heavily-armed small nations on the planet. In one sense the entire country is simply a vast armed camp. It's also widely believed that Israel already has nuclear weapons in its arsenal. There is no reason or need for us to risk the lives of American military personnel to defend a nation that is already fully capable of doing so by itself, imo.
 
nycfan said:
IMG_7518.jpeg
Click to expand...
The relevant question is what percentage of MAGA are isolationists who are unwilling to change their view on the matter?

A lot of them were just echoing Trump’s position and will change their mind as soon as Trump does.

Or does that question even matter since Trump can’t be reelected?
 
dukeman92 said:
What if there is more than one site?
What if Iran escalates?

Adam Smith isn’t as confident as you are that this can be done without troops. And Smith is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Click to expand...

Identification of nuclear processing facilities is one area where our signals intelligence is particularly strong. The other two identified sites apparently have been neutralized.

Fordow has been a central issue for US policy in the Middle East for 15 years. It is difficult to overstate how eliminating that plant changes the policy landscape in that region.

A reason to strike now is that Iran's ability to escalate is quite limited in the short term. It will most likely escalate in the long term, but I would prefer that escalation to occur without the specter of nuclear weapons.

If we don't achieve the objective with bombing, then we haven't achieved the objective and we are in the same situation w.r.t. Fordow as we were before. There is no current sentiment for putting troops into Iran, and I doubt that Trump will permit mission creep to occur on that issue.
 
There is also an emerging, larger US policy issue here regarding nuclear proliferation.

Our retreat from our implied defense commitments in 1994 for Ukraine has dramatically reduced chances for success in nuclear proliferation diplomacy. throughout the world. Ukraine willingly gave up its nuclear capability in exchange for an implied commitment, and we are not living up to our end of the deal.

In diplomacy's place, we and other powers are going to have to work through the next decade to devise another means of retarding proliferation. One possible outcome is that we will have to renounce regime change in general as a foreign policy objective, with a carve-out for regimes that try to develop a nuclear weapons capability. We will have to do that in concert with NATO, China and maybe even Russia. That is a difficult road to navigate.
 
Huh? said:
Identification of nuclear processing facilities is one area where our signals intelligence is particularly strong. The other two identified sites apparently have been neutralized.

Fordow has been a central issue for US policy in the Middle East for 15 years. It is difficult to overstate how eliminating that plant changes the policy landscape in that region.

A reason to strike now is that Iran's ability to escalate is quite limited in the short term. It will most likely escalate in the long term, but I would prefer that escalation to occur without the specter of nuclear weapons.

If we don't achieve the objective with bombing, then we haven't achieved the objective and we are in the same situation w.r.t. Fordow as we were before. There is no current sentiment for putting troops into Iran, and I doubt that Trump will permit mission creep to occur on that issue.
Click to expand...

Soooo you realize that Iran may escalate, but you're cool if it's delayed and ultimely... boots on the ground(?)... also you realize there are other sites but you're confident they're destroyed(?)... , Again, the trepidation isn't coming from me. Adam Smith is FAR less confident than you, and he has access to information that you and I don't.

If we bomb them and do not destroy Fordow we absolutely are NOT in the same situation... Now we've bombed them, they still have a nuclear facility and they're pissed off at us...

I have yet to see a credible argument for our involvement in this shit show.
 
It's history repeating itself. Netanyahu was a big reason of the WMD weapons myth in Iraq when he claimed that Saddam was close to having a nuclear weapon and WMD. The real reason is he wants regime changes in those countries. While a regime change is good/needed for Iran, this is not the way the people want it. Same thing that happened to Iraq, Syria, and Libya. People don't want a foreign country involved in that.
As much as many of us hate Trump, we don't want China coming in and liberating us from him lol
 
RaiGuy said:
It's history repeating itself. Netanyahu was a big reason of the WMD weapons myth in Iraq when he claimed that Saddam was close to having a nuclear weapon and WMD. The real reason is he wants regime changes in those countries. While a regime change is good/needed for Iran, this is not the way the people want it. Same thing that happened to Iraq, Syria, and Libya. People don't want a foreign country involved in that.
As much as many of us hate Trump, we don't want China coming in and liberating us from him lol
Click to expand...
Trump won the election. America gets what they deserve. Your comparison doesn’t make sense. That’s why I always have issue with Palestine. They chose Hamas and even now support them.
 
I know nothing about enriching nuclear material.

I’m curious what happens after Israel or the US (or others) “destroys” an enrichment facility. I’m pretty certain the uranium and/or plutonium isn’t destroyed. It’s the ability to process and enrich the materials that is damaged or destroyed.

So, we have a damaged/destroyed facility housing uranium/plutonium and possibly other highly radioactive materials.

Who guards these facilities?

How difficult is it to take/steal highly radioactive materials from one of these sites and build a dirty bomb?
 
Zoo_View said:
I know nothing about enriching nuclear material.

I’m curious what happens after Israel or the US (or others) “destroys” an enrichment facility. I’m pretty certain the uranium and/or plutonium isn’t destroyed. It’s the ability to process and enrich the materials that is damaged or destroyed.

So, we have a damaged/destroyed facility housing uranium/plutonium and possibly other highly radioactive materials.

Who guards these facilities?

How difficult is it to take/steal highly radioactive materials from one of these sites and build a dirty bomb?
Click to expand...
These are good questions I had even thought about. The world should have probably never let Iran get this far. Now every option is a mess.
 
RaiGuy said:
It's history repeating itself. Netanyahu was a big reason of the WMD weapons myth in Iraq when he claimed that Saddam was close to having a nuclear weapon and WMD. The real reason is he wants regime changes in those countries. While a regime change is good/needed for Iran, this is not the way the people want it. Same thing that happened to Iraq, Syria, and Libya. People don't want a foreign country involved in that.
As much as many of us hate Trump, we don't want China coming in and liberating us from him lol
Click to expand...
100. Atop Bin Laden's reasons for targeting the US was simply our presence in the middle east and our support for Israel. Our involvement would just supercharge that sentiment.
 
HintonJamesHeel said:
Trump won the election. America gets what they deserve. Your comparison doesn’t make sense. That’s why I always have issue with Palestine. They chose Hamas and even now support them.
Click to expand...
Hamas was elected before half the current population of Gaza was even born. There haven't been elections since, and Hamas changed what they were from when they were elected. They basically won because of their humanitarian efforts and because the opposing party was corrupt and making things worse in Gaza. Hamas had promised to focus on politics. After they were elected, Israel started the blockade and didn't give a chance to see if they would keep their word. (note again for the dumbasses out there, i am not defending Hamas). Fast forward nearly 20 years, and they are still in charge in part because they have been funded by Netanyahu and because Israel has blocked any elections from happening again. Also note, it was Israel that helped Hamas form in the late 80's anyways. So, the last thing Palestinians want is Israel dictating who is in charge of them. They hate Israel more than they hate Hamas.

My Trump portion was an analogy for people here that are against him and want change, they would want to do it politically, and not through the interference of a foreign government. That was my point with that.
 
HintonJamesHeel said:
It sounds like Iran has been set back 2-3 years now. The question is does the US go in and basically make it more like 5-10.
Click to expand...
Pros: Kick the can down the road "5-10 yrs", MAYBE there is a regime change but nation building rarely works.
Cons: Potential world war now (suppose China/Russia/Turkey/Egypt get dragged in), at a minimum attacks on US bases in middle east. Potential death for more Iranian civilians. Crippling the energy infrastructure for innocent Iranian civilians. Expensive. Higher costs due to oil and canal disruptions. Piss off the middle-east other than Israel. Hurt our reputation regarding diplomacy. War crimes (assassination)

They're already weakened, so there's a chance regime change happens without our big bomb and involvement. So i don't see the pros outweighing the cons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top