Israel launches attack on Iran | US bombs Iran nuke sites

[Huh?]

Israel doesn't want to risk it's own soldiers' lives, so they are kind enough to volunteer the US to risk our soldiers' lives.

You can criticize Israel for many things, but their willingness to deploy their own soldiers isn't one of them. At least the non-Orthodox ones...

 

[gregh1]

We have business. The business is preventing Iran from acquiring nukes that could be used against us.

What's to keep Iran from buying a nuke from Russia or North Korea?

 

[Huh?]

What's to keep Iran from buying a nuke from Russia or North Korea?

Prevailing dogma is that the selling nation would be held responsible by the other nuclear powers for the consequences of that sale. It's MAD with a twist.

 

[superrific]

What's to keep Iran from buying a nuke from Russia or North Korea?

For one thing, transportation. It's not as if those trade routes carry the big bales of marijuana so useful for nuke smuggling.

 

[Calheel]

Alpha radiation is much, much less energetic and harmful than gamma radiation.

But if you used a bomb full of gamma radiation, it would backfire because you’d end up creating a whole army of Incredible Hulks.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Prevailing dogma is that the selling nation would be held responsible by the other nuclear powers for the consequences of that sale. It's MAD with a twist.

I'm not sure what more the West could do to isolate Russia than they already have since their invasion of Ukraine, at least before Trump took office. Short of actually bombing or invading Russia somehow, that is.

 

[Huh?]

But if you used a bomb full of gamma radiation, it would backfire because you’d end up creating a whole army of Incredible Hulks.

Stop giving Anduril more ideas.

 

[gregh1]

For one thing, transportation. It's not as if those trade routes carry the big bales of marijuana so useful for nuke smuggling.

Nuke bombs don't have to be giant - at least that is what Ben Affleck said in The Sum of All Fears .

Prevailing dogma is that the selling nation would be held responsible by the other nuclear powers for the consequences of that sale. It's MAD with a twist.

So honestly if we're talking about terrorists doing terrorism things, not much. If the goal is to prevent Iran from being able to nuke manhattan or drive an explosive boat into the US, we aren't fool-proofing this at all.

 

[ZenMode]

Not even remotely close. And an Iranian ship headed for the US would almost certainly hit Hawaii or Alaska, but that's neither here nor there.

Terrorists are very resourceful.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Israel doesn't want to risk it's own soldiers' lives, so they are kind enough to volunteer the US to risk our soldiers' lives.

There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.

Perhaps you are correct, but that still doesn't justify why we would need to get directly involved in this conflict. Israel seems to be doing just fine on their own. And even if the Iranians don't get a lucky hit we could still potentially lose people to a mechanical failure or some other issue.

 

[superrific]

Terrorists are very resourceful.

Actually, most of them aren't. If they were, we'd be in much bigger doodoo than we are.

But more importantly, the problem with that ridiculous meme (aside from being a virtual replica of Iraq War propaganda) is science, not terrorists.

 

[RaiGuy]

There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.

They might not shoot down that plane, but if the US gets involved, it will put all our troops that are in based in the Middle East in danger.

 

[mpaer]

Perhaps you are correct, but that still doesn't justify why we would need to get directly involved in this conflict. Israel seems to be doing just fine on their own. And even if the Iranians don't get a lucky hit we could still potentially lose people to a mechanical failure or some other issue.

Once we bomb
All bets are off on what happens next

 

[hedge]

Well maybe Lower Manhattan wouldn't be the right target. Or maybe I'm just full of shit about this. It seems plausible that the reaction to a dirty bomb would be less than the reaction to a nuke (if for no other reason than to disincentivize nuke production), but plausible isn't the same as true.

I misread your original post, I guess a dirty bomb isn't a nuke, but I think any type of bomb (whatever it's called) that released radioactive material that caused lower Manhattan to be shut down would be met with massive reprisal. Maybe not turn Iran into glass, but pretty fucking severe...

 

[gregh1]

There would be essentially no risk to American lives. The Iranians can’t even shoot down Israel’s very non-stealth fighter jets….they aren’t touching a B2.

There are bases all over the middle east within striking range of Iran. There are embassies all over the middle east within striking range of terrorists with passports. There are shipping lanes, Straits of Hormuz, that will soon have military vessels, potentially at risk of mines, etc. And there are American tourists everywhere.

 

[dukeman92]

We are the only ones who can take out Fordow from the air. Only US pilots can fly US-owned B-2s needed to drop US-owned MOABs.

Israel should have considered that before starting a war.

 

[gregh1]

Terrorists are very resourceful.

Again, what is to keep them from being destructive to America even if Iran's own facilities are incapacitated. We know they're somewhat advanced in cyber-warfare. 9/11 showed us that it doesn't take much to inflict harm.

What's the end game after we're done dropping bombs and shooting missiles (however long that takes)? We tried regime change in Iraq and that gave us Isis. We're still in Iraq. We basically stalemated with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iran is TWICE as large as Afghanistan.

 

[gregh1]

This is a well-reasoned post and it's a logical conclusion not to bomb, even if I disagree with said conclusion. It is not an easy call, made more difficult because I do not have faith in the current US or Israeli governments to make the right decisions going forward.

Please permit me to respond with my own pros and cons list:

Pros:
- Kick the can down the road 5 to 10 years
- Make the costs of reinstituting the nuclear program high enough so that the Iranian mullahs don't reinvest. They have other bigger problems right now.
- Create a precedent to provide a disincentive for other countries contemplating their own nuclear weapons programs
- I believe that Fordow is not in a populated area and we can therefore minimize civilian deaths, but I don't know that for a fact.
- Bring the current military action and suffering to a conclusion. If there's no nuclear program, there is no reason for Israel to bomb.

Regarding this one, i think it's a stretch:
"Bring the current military action and suffering to a conclusion. If there's no nuclear program, there is no reason for Israel to bomb."
I don't trust Israel to stop. Hell, our intel suggests there isn't much nuke threat right now. So Israel could simply be attacking for non-nuke reasons (regime change, to keep a certain party in power, etc). We don't know why they're doing what they're doing.

Regarding this one:
"Make the costs of reinstituting the nuclear program high enough so that the Iranian mullahs don't reinvest. They have other bigger problems right now."

This doesn't mean they won't still sponsor terrorism. It takes nukes off the table, but there are millions of other terror threats which we wouldn't alter via a big bomb alone - cyberwarfare, mines in the Straits of Hormuz, embassies to attack. Iran is a huge country, we don't want to piss them off long-term.

 

[hedge]

We tried regime change in Iraq and that gave us Isis.

I guess the hope is that the relatively youthful population of Iran is tired of fundamentalist Islamic rule and will be receptive to regime change and maybe helpful in making it happen. At least that's what I recall hearing about for some time now...