• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll - War or No War, if Iran is about to acquire nuclear weapons?

If Iran is about to acquire nuclear weapons, should the USA engage in war against them?

  • Declare war and invade Iran until their nuclear program is destroyed

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • Let them be or engage in diplomacy, sanctions, anything but war

    Votes: 17 85.0%
  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
GreatNews2night

GreatNews2night

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
8,761
Reaction score
3,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is a poll with only two options.

In case Iran appears to be in the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, such as testing a nuke but still not able to minituarize it for ICBM delivery, but about to complete the whole thing and become capable of delivering the weapon, what should the United States do?

1. Start a pre-emptive war and blow into pieces all components of Iran's nuclear program, regardless of the costs in American lives and treasury, regardless of collateral damage to civil populations, and regardless of international support by allies or lack thereof. The objective would require a major ground invasion to be able to find and destroy underground structures, there would be lots of American soldiers killed.

2. Diplomacy, sanctions, international pressure, whatever else but war, even if the efforts show more and more to be ineffective. Avoiding war at all costs, is what this option is, including, letting them be and allowing them to develop freely their nuclear weapons.

I'm not interested in hearing about intermediate positions like some limited military strikes against them, followed by diplomacy. I'm not interested in conditionals such as "war but only if we have support from a large coalition of allies." This poll is about war or no war, and it's about the United States doing it, even if alone.

-------------

My own vote is for war. I'm fully aware that it's the same risky path adopted with Iraq, which resulted in a disaster and a quagmire, actually for nothing (it turned out that they didn't even have WMDs). I'm fully aware that pre-emptive wars are rather criminal and I'm not a neocon.

The reason why in the case of Iran I'd be for the ultimate solution, is that I think it is thoroughly unacceptable for Western countries to live with the risk posed by a nuclear armed Iran. It's much worse than North Korea, because although the North Korean dictator is extremely cruel, he isn't a religious fanatic and his only concern is regime survival.

In Iran, the regime is concerned about survival as well... but is ALSO concerned about bringing death to the infidels, death to America, death to Israel, all that crap. I'd be afraid that if in the future their regime crumbled due to internal pressures, they'd launch their entire arsenal at Western large cities, just to fulfill what they think is Allah's wish and to go down in a blast of glory, to then go to Muslim Heaven and enjoy their 72 virgins. They'd likely also diffuse their technology and nuclear weapons to other rogue groups and terrorists, who would then attack Westerners by proxy.

So, for me, I'd prefer diplomacy, but this poll supposes that diplomacy has already failed and their nuclear threat is imminent. In this case (and this case only) if they can be only stopped by war, so be it.

I think that if we spend trillions in a war and suffer thousands of casualties and inflict hundreds of thousands of casualties, it is still less bad than having nuclear mushrooms on top of Washington DC, New York City, London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin.
 
Last edited:
GreatNews2night said:
The reason why in the case of Iran I'd be for the ultimate solution, is that I think it is thoroughly unacceptable for Western countries to live with the risk posed by a nuclear armed Iran. It's much worse than North Korea, because although the North Korean dictator is extremely cruel, he isn't a religious fanatic and his only concern is regime survival.
Click to expand...

And the Iranians aren't? They haven't lasted this long because of suicidal tendencies.

In terms of keeping the regime alive the Iranians are pretty rational about it, much like the Norks.
 
To answer the OP, we tried stopping Iran's nuclear program, but despite decades of assassinations, sabotage, and sanctions, we got to the point where Iran was just a year out from developing a nuclear weapon. The result was the JCPOA, because the Obama Administration recognized the only way to really stop Iran from getting a nuke (short of some incredibly risky and dangerous course of action like overt strikes) was to remove the need to have one.
 
Your poll is highly flawed, it only gives two options.

To explain the reality iran has terrain making a traditional invasion impossible, and naval defenses high enough to make it a bloodbath probably worse than d-day to invade by sea. The only logical way to invade iran is to go by air dropping airborne troops in to neutralize their costal defenses to allow an amphibious landing. This method would be very bloody, and that is not counting the iranians doctrine to exploit terrain and urban environments for guerilla and area denial. In the end many simulations have been run, you can probably expect 20-50k americans dead just to take out the iranian govt, and an unknown after fighting splinter govts and insurgencies after.

This is the reason despite every call to invade iran over the decades no one has, the military does a risk assessment, which determines risk vs reward, and has determined every time the risk far outweighs any reward. This will remain true until the reward outweighs the risk.
 
GreatNews2night said:
This is a poll with only two options.

In case Iran appears to be in the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, such as testing a nuke but still not able to minituarize it for ICBM delivery, but about to complete the whole thing and become capable of delivering the weapon, what should the United States do?

1. Start a pre-emptive war and blow into pieces all components of Iran's nuclear program, regardless of the costs in American lives and treasury, regardless of collateral damage to civil populations, and regardless of international support by allies or lack thereof. The objective would require a major ground invasion to be able to find and destroy underground structures, there would be lots of American soldiers killed.

2. Diplomacy, sanctions, international pressure, whatever else but war, even if the efforts show more and more to be ineffective. Avoiding war at all costs, is what this option is, including, letting them be and allowing them to develop freely their nuclear weapons.

I'm not interested in hearing about intermediate positions like some limited military strikes against them, followed by diplomacy. I'm not interested in conditionals such as "war but only if we have support from a large coalition of allies." This poll is about war or no war, and it's about the United States doing it, even if alone.

-------------

My own vote is for war. I'm fully aware that it's the same risky path adopted with Iraq, which resulted in a disaster and a quagmire, actually for nothing (it turned out that they didn't even have WMDs). I'm fully aware that pre-emptive wars are rather criminal and I'm not a neocon.

The reason why in the case of Iran I'd be for the ultimate solution, is that I think it is thoroughly unacceptable for Western countries to live with the risk posed by a nuclear armed Iran. It's much worse than North Korea, because although the North Korean dictator is extremely cruel, he isn't a religious fanatic and his only concern is regime survival.

In Iran, the regime is concerned about survival as well... but is ALSO concerned about bringing death to the infidels, death to America, death to Israel, all that crap. I'd be afraid that if in the future their regime crumbled due to internal pressures, they'd launch their entire arsenal at Western large cities, just to fulfill what they think is Allah's wish and to go down in a blast of glory, to then go to Muslim Heaven and enjoy their 72 virgins. They'd likely also diffuse their technology and nuclear weapons to other rogue groups and terrorists, who would then attack Westerners by proxy.

So, for me, I'd prefer diplomacy, but this poll supposes that diplomacy has already failed and their nuclear threat is imminent. In this case (and this case only) if they can be only stopped by war, so be it.

I think that if we spend trillions in a war and suffer thousands of casualties and inflict hundreds of thousands of casualties, it is still less bad than having nuclear mushrooms on top of Washington DC, New York City, London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin.
Click to expand...

War will not be declared against Iran.
There will be no boots on the ground to fight Iran.
Missiles will be sent to destroy only the nuclear weapons.
 
GreatNews2night said:
This is a poll with only two options....
Click to expand...
Since I don't accept either option, I didn't vote.

Our reaction should be the same as when the DPRK, India and Pakistan: Try to persuade them in proper security and not giving them out. IF they did or IF they used one, then their capital should be erased. No invasion.
 
GreatNews2night said:
This is a poll with only two options.

In case Iran appears to be in the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, such as testing a nuke but still not able to minituarize it for ICBM delivery, but about to complete the whole thing and become capable of delivering the weapon, what should the United States do?

1. Start a pre-emptive war and blow into pieces all components of Iran's nuclear program, regardless of the costs in American lives and treasury, regardless of collateral damage to civil populations, and regardless of international support by allies or lack thereof. The objective would require a major ground invasion to be able to find and destroy underground structures, there would be lots of American soldiers killed.

2. Diplomacy, sanctions, international pressure, whatever else but war, even if the efforts show more and more to be ineffective. Avoiding war at all costs, is what this option is, including, letting them be and allowing them to develop freely their nuclear weapons.

I'm not interested in hearing about intermediate positions like some limited military strikes against them, followed by diplomacy. I'm not interested in conditionals such as "war but only if we have support from a large coalition of allies." This poll is about war or no war, and it's about the United States doing it, even if alone.

-------------

My own vote is for war. I'm fully aware that it's the same risky path adopted with Iraq, which resulted in a disaster and a quagmire, actually for nothing (it turned out that they didn't even have WMDs). I'm fully aware that pre-emptive wars are rather criminal and I'm not a neocon.

The reason why in the case of Iran I'd be for the ultimate solution, is that I think it is thoroughly unacceptable for Western countries to live with the risk posed by a nuclear armed Iran. It's much worse than North Korea, because although the North Korean dictator is extremely cruel, he isn't a religious fanatic and his only concern is regime survival.

In Iran, the regime is concerned about survival as well... but is ALSO concerned about bringing death to the infidels, death to America, death to Israel, all that crap. I'd be afraid that if in the future their regime crumbled due to internal pressures, they'd launch their entire arsenal at Western large cities, just to fulfill what they think is Allah's wish and to go down in a blast of glory, to then go to Muslim Heaven and enjoy their 72 virgins. They'd likely also diffuse their technology and nuclear weapons to other rogue groups and terrorists, who would then attack Westerners by proxy.

So, for me, I'd prefer diplomacy, but this poll supposes that diplomacy has already failed and their nuclear threat is imminent. In this case (and this case only) if they can be only stopped by war, so be it.

I think that if we spend trillions in a war and suffer thousands of casualties and inflict hundreds of thousands of casualties, it is still less bad than having nuclear mushrooms on top of Washington DC, New York City, London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin.
Click to expand...

If those are the only two options, yes. We must go to war, preferably with a coalition of allies.

The alternative will not merely be an Iran with nuclear weapons, but an Iran with nuclear-weapons directly controlling multiple satellite states through their proxies across the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. In other words, what we will be faced with is the Iranian version of the Warsaw Pact.

Just as the Soviet Union became the ultimate guarantor of the security of the satellite states within the pact (or at the very least, the largely-unpopular Communist Party regimes that ruled over them), so too would Iran, over Shia-majority state or States with significant Shia populations. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps could operate in the open coordinating with the governments of these countries, both propping them up against popular uprisings, as well as forcing them into compliance. It worked for the USSR for upwards of half a century. It could certainly serve the Iranian Regime in a similar manner.
 
Last edited:
Condor060 said:
How dim witted would you have to be to believe Iran doesn't want a Nuclear weapon. Weren't they the same ones who denied shooting down the airliner for a week.
Click to expand...

Iranian disinformation agents would have you believe Iran doesn't want nukes.
pirate.gif
 
Jean-s said:
Unlike Israel, Iran has no interest in having nuclear weapons.
Iran says it will never build a nuclear weapon | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Iran want's nuclear weapons or security, it would be correct to say they have no plans to use nuclear weapons but false to claim they do not want them.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate in deterrence, iran is already hard to invade without the invader taking mass casualties, to them nuclear weapons would be seen as a way to prevent an invasion altogether, as no one wants to invade a nation with nukes knowing they will resort to using them if they lose.
 
Felis Leo said:
And the Iranian Regime also said that it was "scientifically impossible" that they shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752.

If you were to stake your life on the honesty and forthrightness of the Iranian regime, you would be dead many times over daily.
Click to expand...

They admitted their mistake about shooting down the passenger aircraft. What do you want, blood?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And the Iranians aren't? They haven't lasted this long because of suicidal tendencies.

In terms of keeping the regime alive the Iranians are pretty rational about it, much like the Norks.
Click to expand...

What part of this, which is in the post you've just quoted, you didn't understand?

"In Iran, the regime is concerned about survival as well... "

Yes, they sure are also interested in regime survival, like I just said. But I added, not only. They are also religious fanatics who wish death on the infidels, so IN CASE THEIR REGIME IS ABOUT TO CRUMBLE (and only then) they might decide to go down in a blast of glory.
 
Hamish Howl said:
That's why I'm not bothering.
Click to expand...

Well, OK, but it was intentional. I wanted to see what people think if push comes to shove, if the only options are war or not war. It's like prosecutors who only give two options to the jury, guilty of a major crime like murder, or innocent, without intermediate charges like manslaughter.
 
Jean-s said:
They admitted their mistake about shooting down the passenger aircraft. What do you want, blood?
Click to expand...

Of the Regime? Yes.

Death to the Ayatollahs. Death to the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Long live a Free Iran.
 
beerftw said:
Iran want's nuclear weapons or security, it would be correct to say they have no plans to use nuclear weapons but false to claim they do not want them.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate in deterrence, iran is already hard to invade without the invader taking mass casualties, to them nuclear weapons would be seen as a way to prevent an invasion altogether, as no one wants to invade a nation with nukes knowing they will resort to using them if they lose.
Click to expand...
North Korean nuclear weapons have stopped Donald Trump from punishing them with more force than the world has ever seen but the Iranians believe nuclear weapons such as the Israelis have and such as were used by only one country in history are un-Islamic.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Well, OK, but it was intentional. I wanted to see what people think if push comes to shove, if the only options are war or not war. It's like prosecutors who only give two options to the jury, guilty of a major crime like murder, or innocent, without intermediate charges like manslaughter.
Click to expand...

Last time that sort of choice was presented to us as a "necessity" was in 2003. Didn't work out very well.
 
Jean-s said:
I thought as much.
Click to expand...

It comes with being an Iranian-American and former Baha'i and living in the milieu of Iranian expatriates whose friends and families were imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the Regime. Iran needs to overthrow these tyrants and subject them to their own Nuremburg and then hang them like they enjoyed hanging gay teenagers from cranes.

Iran is the most well-educated resource rich country in the Middle East after Israel, with an absolute wealth of human capital and culture. It could lead the entire Middle East out of barbarism if the Iranian people were allowed to breath free.
 
beerftw said:
Your poll is highly flawed, it only gives two options.

To explain the reality iran has terrain making a traditional invasion impossible, and naval defenses high enough to make it a bloodbath probably worse than d-day to invade by sea. The only logical way to invade iran is to go by air dropping airborne troops in to neutralize their costal defenses to allow an amphibious landing. This method would be very bloody, and that is not counting the iranians doctrine to exploit terrain and urban environments for guerilla and area denial. In the end many simulations have been run, you can probably expect 20-50k americans dead just to take out the iranian govt, and an unknown after fighting splinter govts and insurgencies after.

This is the reason despite every call to invade iran over the decades no one has, the military does a risk assessment, which determines risk vs reward, and has determined every time the risk far outweighs any reward. This will remain true until the reward outweighs the risk.
Click to expand...

The poll is not flawed at all. I know that it only has two options, it was done on purpose, and I thoroughly explained why, in the OP itself. And regarding hour other arguments, I said regardless of the costs in lives and treasury, I said thousands of American casualties, I'm aware of everything you've just said, in theory (although you've added some interesting specifics, thank you for that). My point is EXACTLY what you are saying: until the reward outweighs the risk. The reward of avoiding MILLIONS of casualties in multiple major Western cities, versus the risk of losing 20K to 50K soldiers.

So, IF THE SITUATION GETS TO THIS EXTREME, what would be your vote?

I stand behind mine. I'm a pragmatist. I think of the lesser evil. I think if Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons, sooner or later they will explode in major Western cities and/or other rogue groups will have access to them and explode them in major Western cities. Faced with THIS risk, the reward WILL outweigh it.
 
Outlook said:
War will not be declared against Iran.
There will be no boots on the ground to fight Iran.
Missiles will be sent to destroy only the nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

That may be a bit impractical and not complete. What about underground facilities?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom