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

cpwill said:

Sure it can.

Click to expand...

No it cannot.

cpwill said:

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.

Click to expand...

There are a few problems with that view. The main one is that Iran knows precisely how enrich uranium. It is possible for them to enrich it undetected.

MildSteel said:

No it cannot.

Click to expand...

:shrug: sure we can. We've been moderately successful thus far with extremely limited engagement and heavily restricted resources.

There are a few problems with that view. The main one is that Iran knows precisely how enrich uranium. It is possible for them to enrich it undetected.

Click to expand...

Oh. And they will do that...... in magical lands wot which we know not?

cpwill said:

sure we can. We've been moderately successful thus far with extremely limited engagement and heavily restricted resources.

Click to expand...

No it cannot be successful in the long term.

cpwill said:

Oh. And they will do that...... in magical lands wot which we know not?

Click to expand...

No, it can be done in Iran on a very small scale. It might take a long time, but it can be done. What are you going to do, station guards in every inch of a rather large geographical area to make sure that they don't do it? In what "magical" world is that possible?

Bottom line. If Iran really wants to build a bomb, they can do it, undetected.

CAN Iran's nuclear program be stopped just via military force alone? Absolutely. Capabilities to enact such a program in terms of infastructure and personnel could be removed repeatedly each time it's spun up and would have the potential to eventually lead the Iranians to decide such an endevour is futile.

SHOULD it just be stopped via military force? Of course not. And I doubt anyone honestly suggests JUST military force. Diplomatic pressure should be exerted. Attempts to foment potential regime change within the population to one that would be less apt to have a nuclear program that is assumed to likely to lead to weaponization is another possible avenue. The THREAT of military force, if believed that it will be carried out, may have some impact as well. And even if military force is taken, there's various humanitarian and diplomatic action that could be taken in conjunction, and post, said action to help facilitate the sustained stoppage of that action.

The issue is completely taking any military option off the table, or assuming that endless diplomatic action that has no true teeth backing it will suddenly work after it's for a fair amount of time largely just stagnated things at best and simply slowed it at worst.

But to suggest it CAN'T be done using military force alone is ridiculous. It may be costly, in efficient, etc but that doesn't mean it can't be done. But again, I know of no one that I can think of whom suggests the only action that should ever be taken towards Iran regarding it's nuclear program is a solely military one.

Zyphlin said:

CAN Iran's nuclear program be stopped just via military force alone? Absolutely. Capabilities to enact such a program in terms of infastructure and personnel could be removed repeatedly each time it's spun up and would have the potential to eventually lead the Iranians to decide such an endevour is futile.

Click to expand...

There is not the slightest thing absolute about what you have said, so to use the word absolutely is ridiculous. First of all, anyone who knows something about physics would know that you don't have to enrich uranium with centrifuges. Next of all, you don't have to have a large number of personnel to do it with centrifuges. It can be successfully done on a very small scale over a long period of time, undetected. As I said before, what is your proposal, put guards on every inch of a large geographical area to make sure that they do not do it?

MildSteel said:

There is not the slightest thing absolute about what you have said, so to use the word absolutely is ridiculous. First of all, anyone who knows something about physics would know that you don't have to enrich uranium with centrifuges. Next of all, you don't have to have a large number of personnel to do it with centrifuges. It can be successfully done on a very small scale over a long period of time, undetected. As I said before, what is your proposal, put guards on every inch of a large geographical area to make sure that they do not do it?

Click to expand...

So basically not looking for an actual discussion, but a confrontation.

Where, in ANYTHING that I said, did I suggest I had a "proposal" or was stating what my personal preference was? I was answering the question that was posed. Yes, via military might alone, one could stop the iranian nuclear program. Using military might alone, one could terminate the leadership of the regime that currently desires a nuclear program and continue to do so until a regime comes into power that does not attempt to obtain a nuclear program. Using military might alone we could utilize ground or air forces to remove facilities. Military organizations have intelligence departments, and thus through military might they could take action necessary to uncover and neutralize covert attempts. All of that is absolutely feasible using military might when the only explicit qualifying criteria is that said military might is the only thing that can be used.

Doesn't mean that's what I want. Doesn't mean that it's cost effective. Doesn't mean that it WILL be done, but that it feasibly CAN so much that any method can. However the question wasn't about whether it would be financially difficult or if it'd take an exorbidant amount of time and effort, the question YOU posed was simply CAN it be done.

MildSteel said:

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

Click to expand...

That's because what they're doing is suspicious, and they could buy all the enriched uranium FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES from Russia, if they wanted.

MildSteel said:

Bottom line. If Iran really wants to build a bomb, they can do it, undetected.

Click to expand...

That's precisely what Israel, the US and Europe are afraid of.

Zyphlin said:

So basically not looking for an actual discussion, but a confrontation.

Where, in ANYTHING that I said, did I suggest I had a "proposal" or was stating what my personal preference was? I was answering the question that was posed. Yes, via military might alone, one could stop the iranian nuclear program. Using military might alone, one could terminate the leadership of the regime that currently desires a nuclear program and continue to do so until a regime comes into power that does not attempt to obtain a nuclear program. Using military might alone we could utilize ground or air forces to remove facilities. Military organizations have intelligence departments, and thus through military might they could take action necessary to uncover and neutralize covert attempts. All of that is absolutely feasible using military might when the only explicit qualifying criteria is that said military might is the only thing that can be used.

Doesn't mean that's what I want. Doesn't mean that it's cost effective. Doesn't mean that it WILL be done, but that it feasibly CAN so much that any method can. However the question wasn't about whether it would be financially difficult or if it'd take an exorbidant amount of time and effort, the question YOU posed was simply CAN it be done.

Click to expand...

No, I want to discuss it. What you are doing here is juggling words. For one thing you have used the word "might" here and "absolutely feasible" when before you used the term absolutely in an exclusive sense. Here's what you said

CAN Iran's nuclear program be stopped just via military force alone? Absolutely.

Click to expand...

There was no "might", there was no "absolutely feasible."

Furthermore your claim is bogus because you cannot demonstrate how Iran cannot enrich uranium on a small scale over a long period of time. That is the problem with your position that it can be done.

MildSteel said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is true, I think. What I also believe is that with sufficiently well formulated and designed rules and robust monitoring, the US would have no choice but to accept a Security Council decision. I also think that any government we have had since Carter would have accepted this even without the regime there abdicating their support of terrorism. Had they done the latter, I actually believe that they could have been reintegrated into the international system as early as Carter, though, the treatment of the Hostages would probably have required an apology by the Mullah.

American said:

That's because what they're doing is suspicious, and they could buy all the enriched uranium FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES from Russia, if they wanted.

Click to expand...

They know how to do it. You can't bomb knowledge.

American said:

That's precisely what Israel, the US and Europe are afraid of.

Click to expand...

If they want to do it, they can do it, undetected.

joG said:

That is true, I think. What I also believe is that with sufficiently well formulated and designed rules and robust monitoring, the US would have no choice but to accept a Security Council decision. I also think that any government we have had since Carter would have accepted this even without the regime there abdicating their support of terrorism. Had they done the latter, I actually believe that they could have been reintegrated into the international system as early as Carter, though, the treatment of the Hostages would probably have required an apology by the Mullah.

Click to expand...

The problem is that Iran knows how to do it. There is no practical way of stopping them if they want to enrich uranium.

MildSteel said:

No you did not tell me anything.

Click to expand...

Of course I didn't list the military instruments and combinations thereof with which the program could be halted, because there are quite a few. Each would be appropriate to different aims, they would each create different cost profiles and communicate to the world different things. There is a difference between a decade of bombardment, four nukes and 400.000 troops with a free hand to pacify. Any and more of so different instruments can stop the Iranian program. But you must know that. So, what exactly do you want to know?

MildSteel said:

The problem is that Iran knows how to do it. There is no practical way of stopping them if they want to enrich uranium.

Click to expand...

"Practical" is a defining word I would agree with. But that is a different category than "can".

joG said:

Of course I didn't list the military instruments and combinations thereof with which the program could be halted, because there are quite a few. Each would be appropriate to different aims, they would each create different cost profiles and communicate to the world different things. There is a difference between a decade of bombardment, four nukes and 400.000 troops with a free hand to pacify. Any and more of so different instruments can stop the Iranian program. But you must know that. So, what exactly do you want to know?

Click to expand...

None of the things that you mentioned will stop Iran's nuclear program over a long period of time. None of that can be sustained indefinitely.

Yes, but not by our military. We wouldn't even stop Syria from using chemical weapons on thousands of people. Obama drew that red line and stepped back. What makes anyone think we'd stop an enrichment program hell bent on Israels destruction?

joG said:

"Practical" is a defining word I would agree with. But that is a different category than "can".

Click to expand...

OK can. Nothing that you suggested CAN be done indefinitely.

MildSteel said:

None of the things that you mentioned will stop Iran's nuclear program over a long period of time. None of that can be sustained indefinitely.

Click to expand...

Any of them correctly done would take them 10 to 20 years to make up. Some would certainly make the delay indefinite.

chad1389 said:

Yes, but not by our military. We wouldn't even stop Syria from using chemical weapons on thousands of people. Obama drew that red line and stepped back. What makes anyone think we'd stop an enrichment program hell bent on Israels destruction?

Click to expand...

Oh. Obama's red lines are the talk of the town. He is sooo good at them. At least the Bushs knew that once drawn, they require action.

joG said:

Any of them correctly done would take them 10 to 20 years to make up. Some would certainly make the delay indefinite.

Click to expand...

No it would not. Again, you cannot demonstrate how Iran cannot enrich uranium over a long period of time undetected.

joG said:

Oh. Obama's red lines are the talk of the town. He is sooo good at them. At least the Bushs knew that once drawn, they require action.

Click to expand...

Okay.

MildSteel said:

OK can. Nothing that you suggested CAN be done indefinitely.

Click to expand...

Though in international policy ten years is almost as good as you can get to "indefinite", it is wrong to believe that today's weaponry is not capable of more permanent. That is the primary reason I am so strongly in favor of policy aimed at a communal organization of international security at the global level.

MildSteel said:

No it would not. Again, you cannot demonstrate how Iran cannot enrich uranium over a long period of time undetected.

Click to expand...

That was not the question I understood you to have asked. But I do believe that it would be nearly impossible to maintain a program to build a reliable nuclear weapon, if the rules of monitoring and inspection are well crafted and robustly enforced.