• 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!

Bargain With Iran

Make the Deal?


  • Total voters
    41
You tell me, we spent $2 trillion dollars going to war with them and it didn't make us any safer! It would be more than silly to repeat the same mistake in Iran, wouldn't it?
Com'on. Iraq was a political war and had nothing to do with terrorist regardless of what the Party Line was at the time. People were basically incited to invade Iraq because there was no real reason to do it. Iran is a different story altogether and I don't think anyone is arguing for a full-scale invasion.

I don't know how limited strikes are possible with 22 deeply embedded targets .. and without a massive slaughter of civilians.
I'm not sure all 22 targets need to be taken out. Cut any link in the chain and the chain is useless.

Also (and I'm not one of these people) you're just feeding the maw of those who wanted to take military action a year ago. Had we taken out the targets before they were buried things would have been much simpler. We saw them doing it and should have bombed them, then. At least that's what our Hawks would say.


Edit:
Absolutely no other country in the world is as good as the US at this. No other country in the world spends the billions the US does at preventing civilian casualties. The best way to do this this hit your target and only your target. Blasts wasted on anything but the target are wasted blasts.

Lastly, the latest deep penetrators the US has can blow through 200ft of hardened concrete. If that's not enough, well then 200 ft of material have been removed or rendered ineffective. The next one will surely have the desired effect. Iran's very expensive buried facilities have no chance. Honest negotiations are Iran's only real opportunity.

Oh, and only a few of Iran's nuclear facilities are deeply embedded. Everyone talks about them, but the deeply embedded ones are the minority. Most are very easily removed targets with common munitions.
I went looking for that but couldn't find the info easily and put it on the back burner. Thanks!

The rest of your post deserved repeating. :)

As a memory spur to those that forgot, don't you remember the first guided bomb videos from Iraq? Targeting and hitting a single building in the middle of Baghdad? Even getting pretty close to the floor of the building we wanted to hit? And that was a decade ago - technological progress doesn't stop.
 
Last edited:
"Limited Strikes" is a common phrase that really means, "limited to specific targets to achieve the goal." You're thinking about this in terms of civilian casualties because (and I'm only surmising here), you're thinking like the Hamas. They launch weapons to anything within range to express displeasure. Casualties are their goal, and since they have an unlimited budget, they don't worry about how effective they are. This does more to harm their cause than help, but they don't seem to realize that.

A modern military cannot afford such childishness. A modern military is extremely expensive so when they expend munitions (spend money) they MUST have a measurable effect. Therefore strikes on Iran, cannot be launched at just anything. They must hit the target, and only that target. Anything else is a waste of time, material, money, and lives. ANY civilian death is counter-productive to a modern military's goal. So limited strikes on Iran must be exactly on target or the mission is considered a failure.

Absolutely no other country in the world is as good as the US at this. No other country in the world spends the billions the US does at preventing civilian casualties. The best way to do this this hit your target and only your target. Blasts wasted on anything but the target are wasted blasts.

Lastly, the latest deep penetrators the US has can blow through 200ft of hardened concrete. If that's not enough, well then 200 ft of material have been removed or rendered ineffective. The next one will surely have the desired effect. Iran's very expensive buried facilities have no chance. Honest negotiations are Iran's only real opportunity.

Penetration may be less than a few meters.. but we do have GPS.. so I suppose we could pound the same target again and again.
 
Penetration may be less than a few meters.. but we do have GPS.. so I suppose we could pound the same target again and again.

200 feet = 60.96 meters. Waaaay more than a few.
 
Com'on. Iraq was a political war and had nothing to do with terrorist regardless of what the Party Line was at the time. People were basically incited to invade Iraq because there was no real reason to do it. Iran is a different story altogether and I don't think anyone is arguing for a full-scale invasion.

And that is different from Iraq, how??? Didn't we just do a bombing run on Iraq first as well?

Clinton orders air attack on Iraq — History.com This Day in History — 12/16/1998
 
I'd be more willing to agree with some Republicans at the time that it was a ploy to distract the press from Lewinsky than I would believe a bi-partisan, 5-year conspiracy to invade Iraq. Honestly, I don't think the two sides can cooperate over that long a time period.

I don't think it was a conspiracy, just wrongheaded public policy based more on middle east oil resources than actual military threats to the US.
 
You tell me, we spent $2 trillion dollars going to war with them and it didn't make us any safer! It would be more than silly to repeat the same mistake in Iran, wouldn't it?
WTF are you stupid or something? Seriously why the hell are you going on about this to me?? I already numerous times directly told you that I saw no reason to go to war with Iran. ANd I never supported war with Iraq. So go bitch to someone else your bull**** has nothing to do with me.

My only point was that Iran is not an innocent by stander that never would do something stupid. How you translated that to what you just said is beyond me. Do you here voices or something?
 
I went looking for that but couldn't find the info easily and put it on the back burner. Thanks!

The rest of your post deserved repeating. :)

As a memory spur to those that forgot, don't you remember the first guided bomb videos from Iraq? Targeting and hitting a single building in the middle of Baghdad? Even getting pretty close to the floor of the building we wanted to hit? And that was a decade ago - technological progress doesn't stop.

The weapon is the MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator)
Massive Ordnance Penetrator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Specifications

Length: 20.5 feet (6.2 m)[13]
Diameter: 31.5 inches (0.8 m)[13]
Weight: 30,000 pounds (14 tonnes)
Warhead: 5,300 pounds (2.4 tonnes) high explosive
Penetration: 200 ft (61 m)[6]

I remember watching videos of bombs flying in through windows and doorways. And of course even bunkers need air ventilation...about the size of a window.
 
The weapon is the MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator)
Massive Ordnance Penetrator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I remember watching videos of bombs flying in through windows and doorways. And of course even bunkers need air ventilation...about the size of a window.
Militarily speaking MOP's have the same deterrent factor as nukes. They are what is considered a game changer. And the research isnt over yet by a long shot.

In fact they want 82m to further that project.

New 30,000 lb. MOP bunker buster bomb needs $82M upgrade
 
Militarily speaking MOP's have the same deterrent factor as nukes. They are what is considered a game changer. And the research isnt over yet by a long shot.

In fact they want 82m to further that project.

New 30,000 lb. MOP bunker buster bomb needs $82M upgrade

Now I'm just guessing here, but I think they're finding the current MOP will not destroy some of the facilities in a single attack. But that doesn't mean multiple blasts would fail. Broken up rock is far easier to penetrate.
 
It isn't Iran using a nuke as a country that I'm worried about. I have no doubt Iran would use those as a deterrent. But what if, for whatever reason, Manhattan goes up in a nuclear cloud someday and the material used is traced back to Iran?

Then the Mullahs will die. And they know that. Which renders your argument moot. Furthermore, despite the lunatic rantings of idiots here, Iran has never given its best weapons to terrorists. The best they'll do is sell them relatively obsolete anti-air missiles and shaped charges. That's 1940s and 1970s tech. Hezbollah does not use the best stuff Iran has. The real problem with an Iranian nuke is everyone else in the region getting one. That is a powder keg. Staistically the more nukes you have, the better chance one can steal one.

Then a whole, new Pandora's Box is opened and I really don't want to think about the ****storm of possibilities then. We'll be forced to respond but if Iran has nukes exactly what do you suppose that response will be? I don't think economic sanctions are going to cut it under those conditions and I'm sure Iran won't take responsibility, either. That leaves few choices and all of them really, really bad.

If a nukes goes off in America, every nation will open its doors for inspections to prove they didn't do it. No country is stupid enough to let a nuke fall through the cracks unless it's undergoing a serious revolution, (aka, RUSSIA). And even in Russia's stance we still haven't seen a nuke used despite the underbelly of Islamic radicalism.
 
I'm hearing the same saber rattling I heard leading up to our attack on Iraq.....................

True, but at least Iran has decent evidence for a change. Taking politics entirely out of the equation and the mere technical issues and the Israeli like secrecy suggest they are building nuclear weapons.

It makes more sense to simply buy fuel rods from Russia and send them back them enrich yourself.

There's really no reason to build an expensive heavy water breeder plant these days unless you want to produce fissile material for weapons.

There's no reason to build enrichment facilities deep underground unless you're planning for an attack. And if you are building purely civilian, then why plan on an attack?

IMO, Iraq was a pack of lies. Iran's justification is not.
 
Then the Mullahs will die. And they know that.

there are two unfounded assumptions in that statement:
1. that they really believe that
2. that they really care

Which renders your argument moot. Furthermore, despite the lunatic rantings of idiots here, Iran has never given its best weapons to terrorists.

you are mistaking "largest weapons systems" for "best weapons". In fact, as regards the most technologically advanced weaponry (rather than, for example, your standard Order Of Battle gear such as tanks, MRLS's etc.), those are indeed used by the Qods Forces.

The real problem with an Iranian nuke is everyone else in the region getting one. That is a powder keg

a powder keg? it's a mexican standoff between three violent schizophrenics, each partially controlled by and unable to control it's most violent tendencies. It's a friggin nightmare.
 
there are two unfounded assumptions in that statement:
1. that they really believe that
2. that they really care

If they did either, they would have risked everything by giving their chemical weapons stores to the Arabs during the various Israeli-Arab wars. They didn't. The Mullahs are not crazy. Despite the lunatic rantings of morons here. The fact that Iran constantly wages proxy wars against a conventionally superior foe shows they aren't stupid but can indeed engage in stragetic calculus to get the best bang for their buck.

you are mistaking "largest weapons systems" for "best weapons". In fact, as regards the most technologically advanced weaponry (rather than, for example, your standard Order Of Battle gear such as tanks, MRLS's etc.), those are indeed used by the Qods Forces.

Come again? The best stuff Iran gives to terrorists dates back to the 70s. The notion they'd let the pinnacle of Iranian weaponry out of their hands is insane.

a powder keg? it's a mexican standoff between three violent schizophrenics, each partially controlled by and unable to control it's most violent tendencies. It's a friggin nightmare.

Three? That's a low ball number. It's possible that the Jordanians will fall under the Saudi blanket with Bahrain, but the UAE, Yemen, Iraq, Syria (to counter Saudi Arabia) and other will all push for nukes. Saudi Arabia already is rumored to have a weapons program. None of these nations are ruled by violent schizophrenics, but they all have religious crazies within their populations. Iran in isolation with a nukes is really not that bad. Even the Israels are starting to accept that based on articles coming out of mainstream Israeli papers. It's everyone else getting them that scares the pants off everyone else in the region.
 
Then the Mullahs will die. And they know that. Which renders your argument moot. Furthermore, despite the lunatic rantings of idiots here, Iran has never given its best weapons to terrorists. The best they'll do is sell them relatively obsolete anti-air missiles and shaped charges. That's 1940s and 1970s tech. Hezbollah does not use the best stuff Iran has. The real problem with an Iranian nuke is everyone else in the region getting one. That is a powder keg. Staistically the more nukes you have, the better chance one can steal one.
You seem to be assuming it's material "sanctioned" by Iran - I made no such comment or supposition. If nuclear material is available in Iran then the risk of some crazy getting his hands on some goes up tenfold if not more. The odds are bad enough already given the possible consequences.

Being the only one with nukes would give Iran a lot of clout. I'm not sure it would give up it's regional position of power by handing out weapons to other governments.
 
You seem to be assuming it's material "sanctioned" by Iran - I made no such comment or supposition. If nuclear material is available in Iran then the risk of some crazy getting his hands on some goes up tenfold if not more. The odds are bad enough already given the possible consequences.

Being the only one with nukes would give Iran a lot of clout. I'm not sure it would give up it's regional position of power by handing out weapons to other governments.

Yes, wigged out schizophrenic crazy men can do the electric slide into nuclear research facilities and 5 finger discount the weapon grade nuclear material in their pockets... and solid snake their way our of the gates.
Sorry... only person getting in there would probably be in mossad and it would be to kill some scientists.
 
There is no need for any deal.

U.S. Weighs Steep Cuts in Nuclear Force

(WASHINGTON) — The Associated Press has learned that the Obama administration is weighing sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a possible 80 percent reduction in the number of deployed weapons.

Read more: U.S. Weighs Steep Cuts in Nuclear Force - TIME
 
Back
Top Bottom