Ok, but what I don’t get is why we should tolerate Mullahs having the bomb when we can stop them from doing so.
Well of course I’ll take that into consideration. And it is a bad idea to bomb it when its online. The Iranian one isn’t yet.
Thats the spirit. 
That’s really not an answer to the question. How many dead people? Fallout over how big an area? Numbers?
Of course it’s a bad idea to bomb it when it’s online. In fact it’s such a mind-bendingly bad idea that the only person that I have ever seen advance it as a viable strategy is…you. Do I have to cite you, or can you manage scrolling up?
We don’t tolerate em, but sometimes they win one for the gipper and we lose. Thats when the folks at foggy bottom jaw jaw , while the folks down in langley plot death and mischief on a more personal level.
Again , the Iranian reactors have been online for a decade or more. At this point , all you can really do is to look at the process flow for the nuke production and look for possible bottle necks that would set back the process for five or so years.
It should have been done in 79 , but its a different world now.
Declan
There’s nothing like dropping a few thousand pound bombs on unsuspecting dark skinned people to adjust a nation’s foreign policy toward to the US.
Yeah, because I seem to think Americas that racist, those imperialist scumbags facist war mongers!
There has to be someway then. I really do hate and despise the leadership in Iran, the sooner its destroyed, the better.
I blame the Carter administration. But you’re right.
Unsuspecting ? , usually the perps in question know its coming.
Declan
You must have missed this, or just did not see the signifigance. The Mullahs in Iran , have a shelf life , just five years alone is enough to alter the outcome of the middle east.
Declan
You guys seem to have misspelled 53 and Eisenhower.
Is there any solid evidence that Iran actually is developing nuclear weapons?
I’ve been away from the internet for a while, but last I heard, there was only the say so of the same people who said that Hussein was six months away from having a nuke that he would give to al Qaida- you remember the same folks who were worried that Saddam’s flying, poison-spraying robots of terror would attack us any minute.
So, if it’s all the same to you, I’d rather not take their word for it again.
What’s the evidence that Iran’s developing weapons?
The Iranians insist their nuclear program is purely for power generation, but many are skeptical. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program:
I don’t think anyone seriously thinks they aren’t developing a nuke program… its just an issue of how far they are… and at what pace they are trying to finish it. The “west” has to set clear opposition and give them face saving means. The problem of bombing is that it practically justifies having those nukes in the first place in order to guarantee sovergeinty and no stupid invasions for votes.
Does anyone seriously believe we can bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, and it ends there?
In “Is Iran Next?” an article in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2004, James Fallows recounts the playing out of several “war games” scenarios for such a bombing. No clear outcome emerged. One of the participants was Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel. He noted, “The region is like a mobile. Once an element is set in motion, it is impossible to say where the whole thing will come to rest.”
If the US attacks Iran even Britain wouldn’t play fig leaf. That’s how bad an idea this is. But I’m fairly confident recent sabre rattling is only that. Let’s hope so.
I think the one country most likely to have people in high levels of govt. capable of supplying terrorists with fissile materials for the production of either dirty bombs or fission bombs is Iran. Probably 99% of the people in power want them so something like the invasion of Iraq doesn’t happen there. But we’re talking about a govt. with religious fanatics in positions of high influence and power. Having these people in control of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium is, to me, about as frightening a prospect as there is.
If targeted strikes, repeated if necessary, could sufficiently damage their nuclear capabilities, it might be warranted. Unfortunately, I no longer think that option would work. Iran is too far along, and the targets too spread out and hardened. In all likelyhood, Iran will have nuclear weapons fairly soon, and there’s probably nothing anyone can do about it. The best hope is a move toward secularizaiton and moderation of the govt., but outside influence applied toward that end probably should not be designed to destabilize the current regime, lest nuclear weapons, or weapons-grade nuclear fuel, get into the wrong hands during a chaotic transition.
We really do not want a nuclear attack on American soil. Think the response to 9/11 was bad? That was nothing compared to what the aftermath of a nuclear terrorist act would be. We can only hope that the Iranian govt. collectively realizes how important it is for them to keep their uranium secure and out of the hands of extremists.
:rolleyes:
The mullahs are not stupid, nor are they suicidal.
Nor are they sane, unfortunately.
Yes, actually, they are. They may not be particularly nice, but I haven’t seen any evidence that they are insane.
I hope the administration of the US is not labouring under the impression that a group of organised people of power and influence are “insane”. BrainGlutton, I think you mean to say “They have a completely different and to me an offensive world view”.
Perhaps I’m judging them based on impressions formed in the '70s. Does anybody in this forum seriously believe Khomeini was sane?
The difference being, rational rulers and leaders can be trusted to make certain calculations of their, and their country’s, self-interest. But if they think they’re taking orders from God, their actions become unpredictable.
There’s a lot of that going around. 