People who think Iran must not have nukes...tell me your plan

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

If you believe Iran must not go nuclear, I'd like to know your plan to prevent it. It's become apparent they cannot be persuaded peacefully to give up their nuclear program, so it seems all that's left is a military option.

Please, armchair generals, tell me your plan to bomb Iran into submission, and explain why it will be successful and the negative consequences will not outweigh the positive.

[Emfuser]

It can't be done without ugly military action, that's for sure.

The US blew it's opportunity for world support by invading Iraq under fucked-up pretense.

Thus, what's going to happen is that Iran will quietly develop their nuclear weapons, word will start to get out about them, subtle suggestions will be made, and eventually it will come out that they have nukes. Then, when pointed out that they've been lying about developing nuclear weapons, they'll have a myraid of excuses ready that most of the press will suck up.

Then Iran will be the skunk of the ME. There are lots of animals that could fuck up the skunk, but nobody wants to deal with their ONE weapon.

Iran will be waving around nuclear weapons, trying to continue funding and supporting terrorism against the US, Israel, and any countries that seem to support them. Most of the European countries will throw in the towel, but the US won't. Eventually one of those nukes will be sold to a terrorist group that uses it in the United States. It will not be used in Israel because Islamic Fundamentalist nuts need Israel to exist as a scapegoat and reason to do all the fucked up shit they do. No Israel = no scapegoat = loss of international support.

It's all pretty clever, really. Ahmedinejad is definitely taking maximum advantage of the situation, and because of the recent past US blunders, he'll have nukes to wave in everyone's face before he can be stopped without war.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Emfuser

It's all pretty clever, really. Ahmedinejad is definitely taking maximum advantage of the situation, and because of the recent past US blunders, he'll have nukes to wave in everyone's face before he can be stopped without war.

It's true, and if no military action is taken and Iran acquires nukes, everyone will then blame the US.

[avsp]

If they've enough insight to see Isreal as a necessary scapegoat then why would they not see the enourmous consequences of a terrorist nuke attack?

Plus, how could they be sure that whoever they gave it to didnt use it against Isreal anyway, ..., or against Iran themselves.

It is probably not possible to stop Irans nuke prohrame through a 'shock & awe' style action. Even nuke 'bunker busters' probably wont work if the facilities are 400 feet down.

Bunkers can be put out of action by attacking entrances & ventilation shafts, but these can be fairly easily fixed

Small special forces attacks wont be able to hit all 30 suspected sites. Some of these sites are the size of small towns & likely to be very heavily defended.

Given the extremely limited aims a swift in & out invasion seems to be called for. Getting in securing the sites & them destroying them can possibly be done in less than a week, getting out is a lot more difficult

Alternatively killing the technicians well before completion may be another approach but how is that to be done? Perhaps such an approach is under way already?

As for justifiying it, ..., well, you've got 3 years, (or so), to get the world persuaded that failure to comply with full IAEA inspection is an attrocious crime

Consequences? ..., hard to see how they could be worse than Iran with a nuke? Possibly not.