• 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!

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

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


  • Total voters
    18
Though in international policy ten years is almost as good as you can get to "indefinite"

And that is why you cannot do it that way.

it is wrong to believe that today's weaponry is not capable of more permanent.

So you think it is possible to destroy every person in Iran and every inch of that area with nuclear weapons? What do you think that would do to the rest of the world?
 
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.

Israel did not sign the NPT- Israel is not considered by Europe to be a threat.
 
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.

After bombing the rubble, very intrusive and without end inspections would be needed.
 
And that is why you cannot do it that way.



So you think it is possible to destroy every person in Iran and every inch of that area with nuclear weapons? What do you think that would do to the rest of the world?

You totally misunderstood. You are right to think that Iran could be obliterated. But that is not at all as dangerous as the situation will be with proliferation.
 
In their mind. Soon to be extinct, but another will rise with another name.

They are a state by any particular definition that is commonly applied, if a fragile and hyper-violent one.
 
No it cannot be successful in the long term.

Sure it can. You raise the costs higher than the gains.

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?

Who says you need guards to figure out that they are building a nuclear reactor? We have satellites. We also have the full wide range of intelligence penetration of high-value targets (such as the Iranian nuclear program).

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

This is unlikely to be accurate (for crying out loud how would you hide the testing?), however, bottom line: you have no idea what our collection capability against Iran is or is not.
 
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.

Not sure of the value in discussing hypotheticals about Iran

U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb
U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb - Los Angeles Times

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/w...see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=0

Is Anybody Listening?
U.S. Intel Chief Says Iran Isn't Building Nukes.
U.S. Intel Chief Says Iran Isn't Building Nukes.

U.S. & Israeli Officials: Iran is NOT Building Nuclear Weapons
FCNL: U.S. & Israeli Officials: Iran is NOT Building Nuclear Weapons

US/Israel: Iran NOT Building Nukes
January 24, 2012

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/24/usisrael-iran-not-building-nukes/

U.S. still believes Iran not on verge of nuclear weapon
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/09/us-israel-iran-usa-idUSBRE8781GS20120809


'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon'
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...et-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300

Israeli Intelligence Agrees With U.S. And IAEA That Iran Has Not Decided On Nuke Weapons
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/03/19/446997/isreal-iran-us-iaea-nukes/
 
Last edited:
They are a state by any particular definition that is commonly applied, if a fragile and hyper-violent one.

Does Boko Haram also have state status?
 
Does Boko Haram also have state status?

They might soon - they claim to be aiming in that direction. However, as of yet they are not willing to fill the functions of a state.
 
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.

It could be substantially degraded. It would/could need bombing Iran back to the stone age.
But the genie is out of the bottle.
The issue is to ensure they do not make a run for a nuke.
Can that be negotiated - yes- but Iran will demand an end state for inspections.
Eventually they will have one. That is my opinion.
Prevents any invasion.
Reason they began their program.
 
You are repeating yourself. That's a zero response.

Sorry, but that's my response who want to have a baby over Iran's uranium enrichment program.
 
So do the Japanese, what's your point?

The Japanese are allowed to enrich uranium. The point is that once a nation has mastered the process it's not possible to stop them from enriching uranium if they are determined to do it.
 
Israel did not sign the NPT- Israel is not considered by Europe to be a threat.

They should become a party to the NPT.
 
After bombing the rubble, very intrusive and without end inspections would be needed.

:lamo

U b barking up the wrong tree dawg! You should get into a pissing contest with that "the great Satan will be destroyed with an iron fist" and "the Korean peninsula will be turned to a sea of ashes" crowd.
 
You totally misunderstood. You are right to think that Iran could be obliterated. But that is not at all as dangerous as the situation will be with proliferation.

What did I misunderstand?
 
Sure it can. You raise the costs higher than the gains.

No it cannot.

Who says you need guards to figure out that they are building a nuclear reactor? We have satellites. We also have the full wide range of intelligence penetration of high-value targets (such as the Iranian nuclear program).

You don't have to have a nuclear reactor to enrich uranium. It would not be difficult to set up a small scale enrichment facility somewhere that could not be detected. If Iran is determined to do that it is possible. It would take them longer to enrich the material for a bomb, but it could be done.

This is unlikely to be accurate (for crying out loud how would you hide the testing?), however, bottom line: you have no idea what our collection capability against Iran is or is not.

By the time it got to the testing they would have already built them. The testing would be just a matter of how high the yield would be. I think you don't have an idea of what it takes to enrich uranium.
 
It could be substantially degraded. It would/could need bombing Iran back to the stone age.
But the genie is out of the bottle.
The issue is to ensure they do not make a run for a nuke.
Can that be negotiated - yes- but Iran will demand an end state for inspections.
Eventually they will have one. That is my opinion.
Prevents any invasion.
Reason they began their program.

You are right that the genie is out of the bottle. Iran has mastered the nuclear cycle so if they really wanted to build a bomb, they could do it. That's why the only realistic way forward is to create the conditions such that they feel no need to build one and get them to agree to rigid inspections.
 
:lamo

U b barking up the wrong tree dawg! You should get into a pissing contest with that "the great Satan will be destroyed with an iron fist" and "the Korean peninsula will be turned to a sea of ashes" crowd.

Nope- I said what would be needed in the event of war. Did I state I agreed with it, nope.
 
You are right that the genie is out of the bottle. Iran has mastered the nuclear cycle so if they really wanted to build a bomb, they could do it. That's why the only realistic way forward is to create the conditions such that they feel no need to build one and get them to agree to rigid inspections.

What I have been saying.
 
No it cannot.

Um. Yeah. It's really easy to do, in fact. It is why Iran halted progress on it's program after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and why Qaddafi gave up his WMD's altogether (and aren't we glad he did).

You don't have to have a nuclear reactor to enrich uranium. It would not be difficult to set up a small scale enrichment facility somewhere that could not be detected

Tell me more about your knowledge of MASINT defeat. 'Cause I think you are making crap up :)

If Iran is determined to do that it is possible. It would take them longer to enrich the material for a bomb, but it could be done.

Until we bombed the facility, and they had to start over. Months/Years of work and millions/billions of dollars for them, Days/Hours of work and thousands of dollars for us.
 
Back
Top Bottom