Can Iran's nuclear program be stopped by military force alone?

[MildSteel]

It appears that some feel that Iran's nuclear program can be stopped by military force alone. But this is a flawed notion because it requires that such force be applied for an infinite amount of time. It will not work.

 

[spangledbanner]

I don't see why they can't have one. Israel has one. And Israel didn't ask anyone if they could make nukes. They just made them. And nobody knows how many they even have. Do they?

Why can't Iran have nukes? What is the big deal? If BB was really worried about it would he want all Jews in Europe to move to Israel? I doubt it. Nobody cares about Iran getting nukes. North Korea has them. Why would Iran having them be worse than North Korea or Pakistan. Normal people do not care about this issue at all.

 

[MildSteel]

I don't see why they can't have one. Israel has one. And Israel didn't ask anyone if they could make nukes. They just made them. And nobody knows how many they even have.

Well they should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but they should be allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful means. There is no good reason why that should not happen.

That is a good point about no one knowing the extent of Israel's program.

 

[spangledbanner]

I don't see why they can't have military nukes. Every nation should have them. As an Australian I want Australia to have them. I don't see what that has to do with any other nation.

 

[MildSteel]

I don't see why they can't have military nukes. Every nation should have them. As an Australian I want Australia to have them. I don't see what that has to do with any other nation.

I don't agree with you. The fewer nations that have them, the better.

 

[joG]

It appears that some feel that Iran's nuclear program can be stopped by military force alone. But this is a flawed notion because it requires that such force be applied for an infinite amount of time. It will not work.

There is no question in my mind that the Iranian nuclear program can be stopped by military means alone. In this context it would be wrong to assume that it would require indefinite engagement. It could, but that would depend on the instruments chosen and the plan one wanted to follow. I would ask other questions.

I would worry more about whether it is necessary or advisable. Only after that has been answered, would I ask, what military means I wanted to employ ie what I wanted to achieve.

 

[joG]

I don't see why they can't have military nukes. Every nation should have them. As an Australian I want Australia to have them. I don't see what that has to do with any other nation.

The analysis I know is pretty clear on that point. The more nations have atomic weapons and near nuclear weapons capability the more the restraints that allowed MAD to work deteriorate and the higher becomes the probability of nuclear war. This probability rises relatively rapidly to near certainty over the next years, unless we can remove international security from the hands of the individual nation to be internalized at the supra national level. As this step will take time, it is absolutely necessary to prevent or at least slow proliferation. Any other policy promises to be suicidal in the sense of a few Billions dead.

 

[joG]

Well they should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but they should be allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful means. There is no good reason why that should not happen.

That is a good point about no one knowing the extent of Israel's program.

As to your first point, I do not believe anyone has a problem with that or has had in the last few administrations. Where there is a great difference of opinion is in verify-ability id est in what means should be employed to verify that there is no program to develop nuclear weapons capability.

The second point I have been following for many years. It is true that the exact size and capabilities of their arsenal are unknown. But I think it would surprise everyone, if the Israeli did not have a number of nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them.

 

[cpwill]

Worked on Iraq. Thus far it's worked to delay the Iranian nuclear program, because we've only used a very, very, very limited portion of it.

 

[cpwill]

I don't see why they can't have military nukes. Every nation should have them. As an Australian I want Australia to have them. I don't see what that has to do with any other nation.

ISIL is a nation.

 

[MildSteel]

There is no question in my mind that the Iranian nuclear program can be stopped by military means alone. In this context it would be wrong to assume that it would require indefinite engagement. It could, but that would depend on the instruments chosen and the plan one wanted to follow. I would ask other questions.

I would worry more about whether it is necessary or advisable. Only after that has been answered, would I ask, what military means I wanted to employ ie what I wanted to achieve.

So, tell us how it can be stopped by force alone?

 

[MildSteel]

As to your first point, I do not believe anyone has a problem with that or has had in the last few administrations. Where there is a great difference of opinion is in verify-ability id est in what means should be employed to verify that there is no program to develop nuclear weapons capability.

If I recall correctly there are some that do not want them to have any type of nuclear program whatsoever.

The second point I have been following for many years. It is true that the exact size and capabilities of their arsenal are unknown. But I think it would surprise everyone, if the Israeli did not have a number of nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them.

It's pretty much a given that they have them.

 

[MildSteel]

Worked on Iraq. Thus far it's worked to delay the Iranian nuclear program, because we've only used a very, very, very limited portion of it.

It cannot work in the long run by force alone.

 

[joG]

So, tell us how it can be stopped by force alone?

Give me a break. There are many ways that it could be done from bombs to boots. The question is whether you want to do it and by no means whether it can be done.

 

[MildSteel]

Give me a break. There are many ways that it could be done from bombs to boots. The question is whether you want to do it and by no means whether it can be done.

You are saying it, so tell us how it can be done.

 

[joG]

If I recall correctly there are some that do not want them to have any type of nuclear program whatsoever.

.....

Who says that they would not allow Iran to have nuclear facilities if the framework, monitoring and inspections are robust and believable?

 

[joG]

You are saying it, so tell us how it can be done.

I just told you. There are any number of instrument combinations. The question is which you would want to use. I do not understand your question.

 

[MildSteel]

Who says that they would not allow Iran to have nuclear facilities if the framework, monitoring and inspections are robust and believable?

I should clarify that. I think there are those who do not want them to be able to enrich uranium at all. That's what I mean.

 

[MildSteel]

I just told you. There are any number of instrument combinations. The question is which you would want to use. I do not understand your question.

No you did not tell me anything.

 

[American]

I don't see why they can't have one. Israel has one. And Israel didn't ask anyone if they could make nukes. They just made them. And nobody knows how many they even have. Do they?

Why can't Iran have nukes? What is the big deal? If BB was really worried about it would he want all Jews in Europe to move to Israel? I doubt it. Nobody cares about Iran getting nukes. North Korea has them. Why would Iran having them be worse than North Korea or Pakistan. Normal people do not care about this issue at all.

I'm so sick of hearing people say they want jihadists to have nukes! It doesn't matter that Israel or anyone else has them. And who says we're okay with North Korea having nukes or Pakistan, who says they're for it? Name them!

 

[American]

Well they should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but they should be allowed to develop nuclear technology for peaceful means. There is no good reason why that should not happen.

That is a good point about no one knowing the extent of Israel's program.

Who's come out against this? I see all kinds of red herrings being thrown out in this thread. Even Israel isn't against nuclear power for PEACEFUL MEANS; if that's the intent of Iran. But it isn't obviously because they have their **** buried in bunkers, and won't submit to inspection. Neither is this discussion about the OP, which is about military capability to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran is nothing but Iraq (under Hussein) with better weapons and engineers. They are the same kind of crazies bent on obtaining nuclear weapons.

 

[MildSteel]

Who's come out against this? I see all kinds of red herrings being thrown out in this thread. Even Israel isn't against nuclear power for PEACEFUL MEANS; if that's the intent of Iran. But it isn't obviously because they have their **** buried in bunkers, and won't submit to inspection. Neither is this discussion about the OP, which is about military capability to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran is nothing but Iraq (under Hussein) with better weapons and engineers. They are the same kind of crazies bent on obtaining nuclear weapons.

There are some that believe that Iran should not be able to enrich uranium.

 

[humbolt]

I'm so sick of hearing people say they want jihadists to have nukes! It doesn't matter that Israel or anyone else has them. And who says we're okay with North Korea having nukes or Pakistan, who says they're for it? Name them!

Plenty here, but no politician is that foolish - they may tacitly support the view, but they themselves won't come out and say it.

 

[humbolt]

Who's come out against this? I see all kinds of red herrings being thrown out in this thread. Even Israel isn't against nuclear power for PEACEFUL MEANS; if that's the intent of Iran. But it isn't obviously because they have their **** buried in bunkers, and won't submit to inspection. Neither is this discussion about the OP, which is about military capability to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran is nothing but Iraq (under Hussein) with better weapons and engineers. They are the same kind of crazies bent on obtaining nuclear weapons.

We don't want crazies to have so much as a cap gun here, but somehow that notion falls apart for some when it comes to nukes and international crazies.

 

[cpwill]

It cannot work in the long run by force alone.

Sure it can.

so tell us how it can be done.

It is cheaper to destroy than it is to build. Whenever they build something, we destroy it. They will run out of resources long before we do.