In the unlikely event that a Nuclear attack could be clearly attributed to Iran - we would instantly retaliate with the usual shock and awe strategy using conventional weapons. We would then occupy the country and manage the oil segment of Iran’s economy, to our benefit, until it runs dry.
Why would we do anything else?
Crane
Occupying Iraq, with it’s population of 32 million, was one thing, and it was a little bothersome.
Occupying Iran, with a population of 74 million. may be a little tougher.
Then there’s the whole “They occupied Iraq, they occupied Afghanistan, now they’re occupying Iran. The US is clearly planning to occupy the entire region!” bit which would do us absolutely no favors.
Unfortunately, it’s trivial: just put the thing on an executive jet.
Much the same goes for the “nuke 'em all” and “destroy their infrastructure (and kill most of the population by starvation)” plans, with an even more massive heap of dead bodies to stoke the hatred. We’ve been playing into their “Christian Crusaders/Western Imperialists attacking the Muslims” rhetoric too long for it to be seen otherwise; probably because we are.
Because the regime has demonstrated that they have nuclear weapons, are willing to use them, and thus any conventional invasion effort would be at risk of nuclear annihilation if we didn’t first demonstrate our willingness to respond in kind.
Because of course, we should sit back after they’ve nuked one of our major cities and apologize for having upset them that much? :dubious:
Perhaps we should ask how Iran would react if the Chief Rabbis in Israel create an army of golems and have them invade Iran and start devastating the country.
Would they surrender before the invading golems, start looking into finding mystical responses of their own, order Hezbollah to initiate operation Slaughter the Jews, or would they have suitcase nukes smuggled into Tel Aviv?
Or, would they have a solution that hasn’t occurred to me?
Nonsense. I was simply pointing out that after generations of aggressive, vicious behavior by America, mass retaliation of any kind is not going to be taken as retaliation at all, but just as an extension of how America normally acts. Iraq didn’t bomb us, and look what happened to it. Deterrence only works if people think you won’t attack them if they refrain from attacking you.
Number 1.
Wow, that was easy.
If Iran launched a nuclear first strike against an American city, and it was clear to the world that that was the case (and I doubt any propaganda nuclear conspiracy to create a fake Iranian first strike could remain secret), I do not think anyone would jump to their rescue. It would spell ruin for Iran.
For one thing it would be a declaration of war. Involving the most heinous crime-against-humanity in history (arguably anyway). The planes, the missiles, the drones, the troops- it’d all go down.
I do believe a retaliatory nuclear strike would be included. You nuke us once, we nuke you twice, and two of our very largest nuclear devices are detonated in, um, specific places. The other end of the scale from ‘Hiroshima’ devices. And, we’re at war with Iran. As I said before, a total nightmare. Not what I want, but what I think would happen.
But then once they were nuked, well this is still the age of the ipad and smartphone. You’d see an infinite amount of suffering and devastation caused by the Americans. So the Iranians would quickly be relegated to the 2nd biggest assholes in history category, but still no one would jump to their rescue.
Iraq happily marched in to Kuwait in 1991 and announced they were taking over the country and that was only the beginning of their plans for the region. They had the 4th most powerful military in the world at the time. A UN action, led by U.S. assets stopped that campaign in tracks but Iraq and Saddam never fully complied with the sanctions and often actively flaunted them for close to a decade while continuing to kill and oppress the Iraqi population including a partial genocide of the Kurds.
Saddam Hussein was exactly like every other dictator of horror in history including Hitler except he got cut short before he could do as much damage. What he did manage to do was plenty horrible enough and he never had any plans of stopping. That whole back-story tends to get lost in the weapons of mass destruction debate and that is really unfortunate that we don’t remember the justice was finally served rather than the debatable motivations of one U.S. President.
Do you have lost for Saddam Hussein and his behavior (or Mussolini or Hitler for that matter)? Do you you truly believe in your heart that the U.S. is as bad as countries under those rulers Der Trihs?
My uncle was in the US Navy in WW2.
1 generation ago.
Vicious?
We aren’t talking about how America is domestically; we are talking foreign policy. And yes; Iraq under American control has been worse than it was under Saddam. And no, there was not the slightest shred of benevolence in our actions or motivations towards Iraq.
Iraq isn’t under American control and both the Shia and the Kurds most certainly prefer a post-Saddam Iraq and plenty of Sunnis certainly do as well.
60+ years is a generation? Since when? And yes; our (and the other Allies) behavior in WWII was vicious, something somewhat papered over by the fact that our enemies were even worse and that we won.
Japan and Germany seem to have turned out pretty well and seem pretty friendly with us despite, as you tell it, our brutal occupation of those countries.
They’re just biding their time.
Considering that even with the comparatively speaking mild radiation from the Chernobyl accident caused birth defects as far away as Norway and was measurable even in Canada, you would be creating an enormous amount of collateral damage. I’m torn on whether the world community would accept that as a necessary consequence of Iran’s attack on the US and (rightly) assign blame there, or if there would be a serious backlash against the US.
That backlash would probably be nuclear in turn, since you’ve essentially exposed 20-40% of the population of India, the majority of Pakistan and probably large parts of Israel to radiation levels that would make Chernobyl look like a third-grade science fair project.
To be fair, I’d expect we’d be destroyed by their atomic mutant supermen.
But in all seriousness, I mentioned the fallout (pun intended) upthread.
My bad. I read that, but I came back to the thread later and forgot.