Even if the US and or Israel bombs Iran to get rid of their nuclear program, what gurantee would there be that the program would have been completely wiped out? None.
How do you go about creating more terrorists willing to die in the process of causing great harm to the US, Israel, etc.?
How do you ensure that the military industrial complex is well-fed with tax dollars so that high-paying jobs are kept or created, thus maintaining the status quo, politically?
What are the chances that Iran will launch an attack against the US or Israel, before anyone strikes them?
Is Iran trying to arm itself as a defensive measure or as an offensive one? Are countries that we don’t like allowed to arm themselves with the best weapons they can buy or develop?
Are the Iranians crazy enough to attack Israel, thus ensuring that Tehran and the rest of the country gets bombed back into the stone age with nuclear weapons, among other things?
Is Pakistan next after Iran or would it be Syria? Pakistan is governed by a general. What happens when a less US and Israel-friendly person comes to power? Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Why not bomb them now (doctrine of a pre-emptive strike) so that they won’t be a threat to the US, Europe or Israel in the future.
Word is that the Israeli airforce doesn’t have the capability for the mission, so rule them out.
Clearly not. Long-standing policy.
Err, are you talking about nuking them? Obviously they are not going to be subject to a conventional attack which wouldn’t take out their nukes, they’re on our side anyway, that always a good thing. See, errr, Iran.
Ok, this isn’t where I read it initially (I’m pretty sure it was a British newspsper article, not sure which paper), but it summarises much of the same points.
If Eleusis was refering to Iraq as the previous example, the obvious point is that Iran is further away than Iraq and the Israeli airforce is not designed for long-range missions. Also, from the cite,
The article that I initially read had [unattributed] claims that the Israeli airforce had told the government that the mission was not realistic. The author was arguing that the reason that the Israelis were being so vocal on the subject was that they want the US to do the job for them because they know they can’t do it themselves.
The Israelis needed American AWACs coverage to bomb the Osiraq reactor. Granted, the Iraqi Air Force is less of a threat now than it was 20-odd years ago, but the likelihood IMHO is that an Israeli strike would simply be a surrogate US strike, with more US logistical support.
You mean besides starting a new cycle of world terrorism and a new quagmire ?
Naturally… but I’m criticizing your “quick and dirty” view of something as complicated as the Nuclear weapons development and spread in the Middle East. The fact that your unwilling to contemplate anything but bombing is certainly a demonstration of how you think and how things will get worse.
I’ve contemplated the negotiations set out by the European Union, but am pretty sure they’ll lead nowhere.
Look, this isn’t some 2nd world developing country which peaceful intentions here, its a second world country with a pathological hatred of Israel, the West and US. The minute it sees it can get away with sabre rattling, the more likely the chances are they’ll increase the pressure right on Israels doorstep. We are better off keeping them weak and destroying the reactor, I see no need in letting them have that ‘paper tiger’ of an A bomb.
So you believe there will be no increase in terrorism if we allow them to develop them bomb? Or a reactor?
Its the classic catch-22 situation, damned if ya do, damned if ya don’t. We might as well exhaust the diplomatic channels, if a solution if met, fine, but in the end they will attain a nuclear bomb. Thats why I advocate taking it out.
Even the Israelis said afterwards , that the only reason the osirak reactor strike was authorized , was that it was not online , had it been so , the strike would have been aborted or not authorized.
The Iranians learned hard lessons from Osirak and they have no intention of letting us have a cheap one. If anyones military takes a serious look at hitting the complexes , they are probably going to only qualify a 90% sucess rate with penetrating nukes.
It would be a lot easier to decapitate the govt of Iran.
Ryan, just so we’re clear here, what is your casualty estimate for the ‘damned if we do’ part of your equation, the bombing of (apparantly) more than one working nuclear reactor inside Iran?
You can go to the nearest hundred thousand or whatever. Just so we’ve got a rough idea.