So when do we invade Iran?

[Drake Tungsten]

If your goal is to stop Iran from nuking Tel Aviv and Haifa, and you go in bombing them, you'd better be damn damn sure they don't have a missile and bomb ready to go that US intel didn't know about or the whole thing will be counter-productive.

Who knows what NK may have sold them? Or how many sites they may have? Or how far along they really are? Or whether airstrikes alone would be a)effective b)not disastrously counter-productive.

I was just reading about a scenario like this, where Iran already has a few nukes acquired from or built with materials given by North Korea. The Iranians could be holding back on their first test or announcement until they have an assembly line ready to crank out more bombs in a timely fashion.

If they do have a bomb, that really complicates things. I guess you'd have to figure out what you think the worse scenario is: attacking now and risking an Israeli city or letting Iran finish their program and having to deal with the consequences of a Middle East in which nuclear proliferation, nuclear arms races and terrorist acquistion of nuclear weapons is much more likely.

[GePap]

Just as people failed to make any useful statement pre-Iraq as to why the simple theory of deterrence did not work in that scenerio, NO ONE has yet given a sinlge worthwhile statement as to why Iran would not be detrerred by Israels nulcear arsenal, nor the US's.

I hope, if this is to be a 'serious" discussion, that someone at least make the attempt.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by GePap
Just as people failed to make any useful statement pre-Iraq as to why the simple theory of deterrence did not work in that scenerio, NO ONE has yet given a sinlge worthwhile statement as to why Iran would not be detrerred by Israels nulcear arsenal, nor the US's.

I hope, if this is to be a 'serious" discussion, that someone at least make the attempt.

I already did. Iran could not use nuclear weapon without ensuring its own destruction.

[Drake Tungsten]

I truly doubt the ability of airstrikes (even by the USAF) to take care of a significant amount of Iran's weapons-oriented development capability. The IAF doesn't have a chance. Not enough planes, not enough bombs, not the right kind of bombs.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this. I wish this wasn't the case, as airstrikes would be the least bad option, but what are you going to do? Airstrikes might be able to set the program back a bit, but I don't think they can destroy it...

[KrazyHorse]

If they already have the bomb then we're ****ed. At that point an invasion or nuclear attack guarantees that Iran would launch against Israeli targets. No question. And airstrikes will bring up a significant possibility that they will launch (depends on how rational they're feeling) while not doing anything to remove their already-acquire nuclear capability (since the bombs themselves would be far more portable than the facilities used to create them).

The question at that point becomes "how good is Iranian missile technology"?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Thorn
drats I meant to make this a poll.

I vote for not being nuked.

...or maybe the banana option I really haven't decided yet.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I already did. Iran could not use nuclear weapon without ensuring its own destruction.

That is an AFFIRMATION of the theory of deterrence.

I am talking about the people who speak as if Iran getting nukes is different from any other regime, like the USSR, or China, or Pakistan, getting nukes.

[Drake Tungsten]

The question at that point becomes "how good is Iranian missile technology"?

Or "how quickly and effectively can the USAF destroy the Iranian missile launchers in a surprise attack"? I have a lot of respect for the USAF, but they aren't perfect and they would need to be in this instance.

[Drake Tungsten]

This is a pretty interesting article, btw...

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by GePap
I am talking about the people who speak as if Iran getting nukes is different from any other regime, like the USSR, or China, or Pakistan, getting nukes.

I see. I read a different meaning into your post. I agree with you. I don't think that it would be any different.

People seem to assume that Iran would naturally sell / give nukes to terrorist organizations if they developed them. That is not a realistic assumption. If the U.S. were to be attacked through nuclear terrorism and had any hint that Iran armed those terrorists, then the U.S. would nuke Iran. Deterrence logic would still hold. Other than selling or giving terrorists nukes, I don't see how Iran having nukes would benefit the terrorist organizations. The tecnhology is already out and available (Pakistan has it). Terrorists could get the technology today regardless of whether Iran had nuclear weapons. The Iran nuclear issues doesn't seem to be as important as many are making it out to be.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I truly doubt the ability of airstrikes (even by the USAF) to take care of a significant amount of Iran's weapons-oriented development capability. The IAF doesn't have a chance. Not enough planes, not enough bombs, not the right kind of bombs.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this. I wish this wasn't the case, as airstrikes would be the least bad option, but what are you going to do? Airstrikes might be able to set the program back a bit, but I don't think they can destroy it...

Obviously airstrikes are by far the best option, if their effectiveness can be guaranteed (or at least isn't a real long shot).

If Iran can't be convinced to willingly give up their nuclear ambitions then we face a stark choice: invasion or acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power, and the hope that we can convince them to be a responsible nuclear power.

The decision needs to be made in the next 3 years or so, assuming that the voluntary disarming or at least suspension of active arming doesn't take place. In my opinion airstrikes alone in that period will simply make the existence of Iran as a responsible nuclear power much harder to achieve, while not doing much to stop them from becoming a nuclear power at all.

That's about the minimum timeframe I'd guess at for Iran to produce anything which could realistically be put on a rocket, assuming the West's intelligence about current capabilities and knowledge is correct.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The question at that point becomes "how good is Iranian missile technology"?

Or "how quickly and effectively can the USAF destroy the Iranian missile launchers in a surprise attack"?

Assuming they know exactly where all of them are.

[GePap]

I am sorry, but why the **** would the Iranians, if they had any nukes, nuke Israel in retaliation for conventional bombing attacks???? I am sorry, but this is the sort of discussion that robs any "seriousness" out of the thread.

The Israeli response would be nuclear-everyone knows this. So what is the point?

The Iranians could do far more things that would be much worse realistically- blockade the Straits of Hormuz, and mess with oil production- drive the price of oil throught the roof- Gas at 4.50 a gallon would hurt Bush FAR more than the Iranians getting themselves nuked.

Also, let pro-Iranian groups in Iraq derail Bush's little Iraq project, and create more problems in Afghanistan. The anti-US demostrations worldwide that would follow such a bombing compaign in and of themselves would also help set the US back.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap
I am sorry, but why the **** would the Iranians, if they had any nukes, nuke Israel in retaliation for conventional bombing attacks????

It depends on how effective the airstrikes are.

If, somehow, they are surprisingly effective then the Iranians will be faced with the choice of "use it or lose it". I think that airstrikes against a nuclear-armed Iran would most likely not result in a nuclear retaliation, but it is a not insignificant possiblity.

And again, at that point we'd be creating an incitement to use with virtually 0 possibility of success.

So while air strikes are a bad option now, they are much worse when Iran already has a launchable weapon. They would be less effective and provide greater risk.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The question at that point becomes "how good is Iranian missile technology"?

They have a decent medium range inventory like North Korea. Longer ranges are still in development. As it stands now, hitting targets inside of Israel is not a problem. Also, as you alluded to, finding the launchers will be problematic (and tougher than finding Iraqi scuds).