Now, in Iran, whom we certainly do not want to acheive nuclear weapons, we can put pressure on them to stop development (this has not even showed the least sign of actually working) or we can destroy those facilities prior to them acheiving their goal. That means bombing them. Due to where their facilities are located, it may not, in fact it is very doubtful, that the facilities and research can be destroyed by anything less than a deep penetrating nuclear weapon. Personally, I favor the invasion route over that, but not everyone does and some just want to believe we could do it with only conventional bombing. Should we chose to employ the nuclear option, we would consider the civilian population in the area and areas that would be affected. But, in the balance of things, if the whole of the Population of Iran were to become collateral damage, my assessment is that it is an acceptable level to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Look, I'm not an Iran fan. However, our involvement with the Shah and our subsequent poor diplomatic efforts don';t earn us a gold medal either.
One thing I've learned through life is that being "right" is not always as valuable as being "smart".
Lets say we approached Iran and said "look, we're sorry for pissing you off. We feel we may have done the wrong thing. We'd like to try to start over with a clean slate. We have a lot to offer you and if you'll hold off on your bomb-biz for 3 years, we'll trade with you, tour you, exchange education with you and help you develop nuclear plants if you want us to. All we ask is to give all this another try.Not only that, but we'll throw some money at the Palestinians and we'll tell Israel that building one more ****ing settlement will cost them their foreign aid."
So, maybe it works - yowser. Maybe they tell us to **** off - hey, we really tried. It's LOGICAL to try to avoid killing 10s of thousands of people, isn't it?
So, maybe you say "sure Mr. Logical, and what if they say yes but they sneak around and build a nuke?". Well, it's not as if we don't have about 3,000 nukes ourselves and we'll be incapable of defending ourselves.
Just a speculative opinion of course.....
To my knowlege no one is seriously talking about using nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuke facilities. It HAS been looked at, but the general opinion has been "No...bad idea".
Conventional bombing would not produce fallout.
This is not to say that a certain amount of radioactive dust might not be kicked up from the sites, due to there being uranium present.
IMHO that is Iran's problem for building the sites to start with.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
As to Iranian actions, that broaches onto areas that I absolutely cannot discuss.
Last edited by DVSentinel; 08-29-12 at 06:39 PM.