DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

You're bringing up conflicts from more than 250 years ago to try and claim that we are in danger of getting nuked by the UK in the future? Really??? My God, man.

It's post like these that scare the **** out of me. Some of you conservative wingnuts are bat **** crazy.

---

You claimed the UK had no history of exporting terrorism around the world. If you are that careless with your own words it is no wonder you are so cavalier about American lives and think throwing some misiles around will fix the problem.

Again, if missile strikes would fix the problem then why did Obama, Trump and Biden fail to order the strikes? You are running away from the most important question because you know the answer is that missile strikes will not stop Iran or else the strikes would have already happened.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.

But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

The newer generations end up just as radical as the older ones. Iran and Islam are built to make sure it happens that way. Sure, under economic duress or some extreme regime action (death of someone or policy) you'll get some public discord from time to time, but it eventually falls back in line.

---

Then the only rational conclusion is a clash of civilizations to end it once and for all?

Perhaps the worst thing Clinton did was condition the American public and politicians to the idea that we could engage in military conflicts with no boots on the ground. The Serbians had to be stopped, but Americans now seem to sincerely believe we can just handle everything from the air. We cannot. Decisive victory entails boots on the ground, regime change where possible (Marshall plan/Japan) or salting the earth, if no other course is possible. America has not had the political will for that type of engagement since Vietnam.

---

Not so much a clash of civilizations, but a clash of ideologies is inevitable. Islamism is completely incompatible with modernity and needs to be on the scrap heap of history like Christian Monarchy , feudalism, and many other historical systems. I'm not arguing that Iran is the hill where that dies on, but there is a structural conflict that will have to be settled.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. The US and Iran are parties to a treaty called the NPT. We've expressly recognized Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program and pledged to support it, in exchange for which they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. When Trump demands that they give up nuclear energy, he's effectively renouncing the treaty and signaling to Iran that they might as well ignore anything we say.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. When Iran consistently and continually violated the NPT, refusing to let the IAEA inspectors access to their facilities and hiding work they were performing, that's called under the law a prior material breach of the agreement. When a party flaunts and violates the terms of your agreement, then the law generally recognizes that the aggrieved party is no longer bound by same.

Iran's Repeated Violations of NPT

This is pretty simple, yet for some reason, a lawyer still doesn't get it.

---

Your article is well out of date. What it describes, with varying degrees of accuracy, are issues that were in play prior to the JCPOA. Obama saw that abandoning the treaty would have been counter-productive. Instead he negotiated an agreement, only to see it arbitrarily jettisoned by Trump.

Leaving all that aside, though, let's assume for a moment that you're right and there is no negotiated solution to be had. In that case we would have the same right to attack Iran that we have to attack any other country with a civilian nuclear program, i.e. none whatsoever.

---

I'm not defending Trump's actions. You brought up the NPT and I'm simply responding to why that's irrelevant at this point given Iran's well documented violations of same.

As for Iran, we'd have no less right to respond to the terrorist state involved in a proxy war with the U.S. than Russia had for invading Ukraine. But your double standard on that point is not a surprise.

---

If the NPT were irrelevant, we wouldn't be so concerned about keeping Iran a party to it. Those who are really interested in non-proliferation know that's the best way. They know inspections work. But they're not the ones you're paying attention to. The same warmongers who sold you the Iraq fiasco are pushing the same old propaganda, and you're buying it all over again. They never wanted a nuclear deal. They don't care about containing Iran's nuclear program. They care about one thing only, and that's regime change.

The choice between a ground war and a nuclear-armed Iran is a false dilemma. Our real choice is between diplomacy and another military ****show that will gain us nothing in the long run but another drawn-out defeat and a new nuclear enemy.

---

I wasn't suggesting the NPT is irrelevant to future negotiations with Iran. I was instead pointing out that is was absurd for you to suggest that we are morally and legally bound by the NPT when Iran has continually violated it.

I agree inspections work, when the IAEA is not hindered from performing them. Therein lies the issue.

Also agree that the choice between a ground war and nuclear Iran is a false dilemma, which is why I have never suggested same.

As for diplomacy, just like the Russian-Ukraine negotiation, it takes two to tango.

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

Clandestine operations are great, but one time stopgap measures. Not permanent solutions. Doubtful Iran ever gets stopped by Trojan horse malware, again. But we'll see. Mossad is free to do whatever it wants or does not want. I just don't want American boys and girls to be the underwriters of everybody else's national security. My social compact is with the United States of America (and the other country I am a natural-born citizen of). I am not a citizen of the world.

All I care about is American lives and give me fortress America. "Growing threat" was the moral and political justification for the total disasters in Vietnam and Iraq.

Now we hear the same drum beat with regards to Iran. I made my own decisions decades ago, but it hits different when your sons are about to register with the selective service in the next few years. I'm done with foreign adventurism and cavalier attitudes. I accept that we cannot possibly police the entire world.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

A little over half of Americans and a supermajority of like 70 something % of young Americans feel this way about our "greatest ally" Israel.

Israel literally stole enriched uranium and nuclear secrets from us to build their nuclear weapons program! And there are a lot of theories going around that they had a hand in Kennedy's assassination as he was about to cut them off and expose them for the traitorous *******s that they are.

See Apollo Affair

How Israel Deceived the U.S. and Built the Bomb
[url=https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/President-Kennedy-gave-Israel-a-strong-warning-about-its-nuclear-reactor-in-1963-589107][/url]
President Kennedy gave Israel a strong warning about its nuclear reactor in 1963[url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/07/israel-nuclear-weapons-dimona-deception-cia-jfk-eisenhower-lbj-ben-gurion/][/url]

This is why I find it so hypocritical when you point out Iran's fanaticism, which I don't really disagree about, when Israel is sitting there with at least 400+ nukes and is every bit as duplicitous and fanatical. Israel is one of the only countries who refuses to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty - which Iran has signed.

I'm not even going to get into all the classified weapons systems Israel has sold to the CCP behind our backs or the false flag USS Liberty attack that killed 34 American servicemen.

Israel has always been America's greatest enemy.

Iran is no spring peach, but I'm not going to start a war with them for Israel. Israel can fight its own wars.

Thankfully the tide is turning and at least half if not more of Americans agree with me.

Even on this boomercon message board only two Shabbos Goys (one being yourself) have vocally expressed their desire to pre-emptively attack Iran over retaining a civil nuclear energy program (Iran has said multiple times they have no interest in developing nuclear weapons).

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

Clandestine operations are great, but one time stopgap measures. Not permanent solutions. Doubtful Iran ever gets stopped by Trojan horse malware, again. But we'll see. Mossad is free to do whatever it wants or does not want. I just don't want American boys and girls to be the underwriters of everybody else's national security. My social compact is with the United States of America (and the other country I am a natural-born citizen of). I am not a citizen of the world.

All I care about is American lives and give me fortress America. "Growing threat" was the moral and political justification for the total disasters in Vietnam and Iraq.

Now we hear the same drum beat with regards to Iran. I made my own decisions decades ago, but it hits different when your sons are about to register with the selective service in the next few years. I'm done with foreign adventurism and cavalier attitudes. I accept that we cannot possibly police the entire world.

---

Unfortunately, fortress America does not seem possible without significantly improved technology. This is no longer the 1800s. When a rogue state can park a warhead in our living rooms, the idea that we are going to be able get out of this unscathed if some crazy decides to start the final jihad seems foolish at best.

But once again, I guess we just need to keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

A little over half of Americans and a supermajority of like 70 something % of young Americans feel this way about our "greatest ally" Israel.

Israel literally stole enriched uranium and nuclear secrets from us to build their nuclear weapons program! And there are a lot of theories going around that they had a hand in Kennedy's assassination as he was about to cut them off and expose them for the traitorous *******s that they are.

See Apollo Affair

How Israel Deceived the U.S. and Built the Bomb
[url=https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/President-Kennedy-gave-Israel-a-strong-warning-about-its-nuclear-reactor-in-1963-589107][/url]
President Kennedy gave Israel a strong warning about its nuclear reactor in 1963[url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/07/israel-nuclear-weapons-dimona-deception-cia-jfk-eisenhower-lbj-ben-gurion/][/url]

This is why I find it so hypocritical when you point out Iran's fanaticism, which I don't really disagree about, when Israel is sitting there with at least 400+ nukes and is every bit as duplicitous and fanatical. Israel is one of the only countries who refuses to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty - which Iran has signed.

I'm not even going to get into all the classified weapons systems Israel has sold to the CCP behind our backs or the false flag USS Liberty attack that killed 34 American servicemen.

Israel has always been America's greatest enemy.

Iran is no spring peach, but I'm not going to start a war with them for Israel. Israel can fight its own wars.

Thankfully the tide is turning and at least half if not more of Americans agree with me.

Even on this boomercon message board only two Shabbos Goys (one being yourself) have vocally expressed their desire to pre-emptively attack Iran over retaining a civil nuclear energy program (Iran has said multiple times they have no interest in developing nuclear weapons).

---

I assumed this thread would devolve into an Israel rant at some point.

Maybe we should just nuke them. Finish what Hitler started. Would that satisfy you?

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

A little over half of Americans and a supermajority of like 70 something % of young Americans feel this way about our "greatest ally" Israel.

Israel literally stole enriched uranium and nuclear secrets from us to build their nuclear weapons program! And there are a lot of theories going around that they had a hand in Kennedy's assassination as he was about to cut them off and expose them for the traitorous *******s that they are.

See Apollo Affair

How Israel Deceived the U.S. and Built the Bomb
[url=https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/President-Kennedy-gave-Israel-a-strong-warning-about-its-nuclear-reactor-in-1963-589107][/url]
President Kennedy gave Israel a strong warning about its nuclear reactor in 1963[url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/07/israel-nuclear-weapons-dimona-deception-cia-jfk-eisenhower-lbj-ben-gurion/][/url]

This is why I find it so hypocritical when you point out Iran's fanaticism, which I don't really disagree about, when Israel is sitting there with at least 400+ nukes and is every bit as duplicitous and fanatical. Israel is one of the only countries who refuses to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty - which Iran has signed.

I'm not even going to get into all the classified weapons systems Israel has sold to the CCP behind our backs or the false flag USS Liberty attack that killed 34 American servicemen.

Israel has always been America's greatest enemy.

Iran is no spring peach, but I'm not going to start a war with them for Israel. Israel can fight its own wars.

Thankfully the tide is turning and at least half if not more of Americans agree with me.

Even on this boomercon message board only two Shabbos Goys (one being yourself) have vocally expressed their desire to pre-emptively attack Iran over retaining a civil nuclear energy program (Iran has said multiple times they have no interest in developing nuclear weapons).

---

I assumed this thread would devolve into an Israel rant at some point.

Maybe we should just nuke them. Finish what Hitler started. Would that satisfy you?

---

Like you want to do with Iran?

No.. I am not as bloodthirsty as you are.

I just want to cut them off, take away dual citizenship, and make their advocates register under FARA like every other representative of any other foreign country.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

A little over half of Americans and a supermajority of like 70 something % of young Americans feel this way about our "greatest ally" Israel.

Israel literally stole enriched uranium and nuclear secrets from us to build their nuclear weapons program! And there are a lot of theories going around that they had a hand in Kennedy's assassination as he was about to cut them off and expose them for the traitorous *******s that they are.

See Apollo Affair

How Israel Deceived the U.S. and Built the Bomb
[url=https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/President-Kennedy-gave-Israel-a-strong-warning-about-its-nuclear-reactor-in-1963-589107][/url]
President Kennedy gave Israel a strong warning about its nuclear reactor in 1963[url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/07/israel-nuclear-weapons-dimona-deception-cia-jfk-eisenhower-lbj-ben-gurion/][/url]

This is why I find it so hypocritical when you point out Iran's fanaticism, which I don't really disagree about, when Israel is sitting there with at least 400+ nukes and is every bit as duplicitous and fanatical. Israel is one of the only countries who refuses to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty - which Iran has signed.

I'm not even going to get into all the classified weapons systems Israel has sold to the CCP behind our backs or the false flag USS Liberty attack that killed 34 American servicemen.

Israel has always been America's greatest enemy.

Iran is no spring peach, but I'm not going to start a war with them for Israel. Israel can fight its own wars.

Thankfully the tide is turning and at least half if not more of Americans agree with me.

Even on this boomercon message board only two Shabbos Goys (one being yourself) have vocally expressed their desire to pre-emptively attack Iran over retaining a civil nuclear energy program (Iran has said multiple times they have no interest in developing nuclear weapons).

---

I assumed this thread would devolve into an Israel rant at some point.

Maybe we should just nuke them. Finish what Hitler started. Would that satisfy you?

---

Like you want to do with Iran?

No.. I am not as bloodthirsty as you are.

I just want to cut them off, take away dual citizenship, and make their advocates register under FARA like every other representative of any other foreign country.

---

When I said I would support precision strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort, you actually thought I was suggesting we nuke Iran?

Maybe I've given you too much credit.

With respect to Israel, ok. Cut off financial support, dual citizenship and make them register under FARA. When that happens, I suspect it will be highly likely the ME goes up in flames, but if we don't care what happens to the rest of the world, I suppose that is a viable option. Let's just hope it doesn't spill over and draw us into a war.

Younger Americans are more likely to sympathize with the Palestinian people than the Israeli people.

Among Republicans under 30, Israel and Palestine share equal support.

With Democrats under 30, Israel has virtually no support.

This is why they are pushing so hard for war with Iran now. They realize their boomer support clock is ticking and wont be around to unconditionally support them 10-15 years from now.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

A little over half of Americans and a supermajority of like 70 something % of young Americans feel this way about our "greatest ally" Israel.

Israel literally stole enriched uranium and nuclear secrets from us to build their nuclear weapons program! And there are a lot of theories going around that they had a hand in Kennedy's assassination as he was about to cut them off and expose them for the traitorous *******s that they are.

See Apollo Affair

How Israel Deceived the U.S. and Built the Bomb
[url=https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/President-Kennedy-gave-Israel-a-strong-warning-about-its-nuclear-reactor-in-1963-589107][/url]
President Kennedy gave Israel a strong warning about its nuclear reactor in 1963[url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/07/israel-nuclear-weapons-dimona-deception-cia-jfk-eisenhower-lbj-ben-gurion/][/url]

This is why I find it so hypocritical when you point out Iran's fanaticism, which I don't really disagree about, when Israel is sitting there with at least 400+ nukes and is every bit as duplicitous and fanatical. Israel is one of the only countries who refuses to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty - which Iran has signed.

I'm not even going to get into all the classified weapons systems Israel has sold to the CCP behind our backs or the false flag USS Liberty attack that killed 34 American servicemen.

Israel has always been America's greatest enemy.

Iran is no spring peach, but I'm not going to start a war with them for Israel. Israel can fight its own wars.

Thankfully the tide is turning and at least half if not more of Americans agree with me.

Even on this boomercon message board only two Shabbos Goys (one being yourself) have vocally expressed their desire to pre-emptively attack Iran over retaining a civil nuclear energy program (Iran has said multiple times they have no interest in developing nuclear weapons).

---

I assumed this thread would devolve into an Israel rant at some point.

Maybe we should just nuke them. Finish what Hitler started. Would that satisfy you?

---

Like you want to do with Iran?

No.. I am not as bloodthirsty as you are.

I just want to cut them off, take away dual citizenship, and make their advocates register under FARA like every other representative of any other foreign country.

---

When I said I would support precision strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort, you actually thought I was suggesting we nuke Iran?

Maybe I've given you too much credit.

With respect to Israel, ok. Cut off financial support, dual citizenship and make them register under FARA. When that happens, I suspect it will be highly likely the ME goes up in flames, but if we don't care what happens to the rest of the world, I suppose that is a viable option. Let's just hope it doesn't spill over and draw us into a war.

---

Have you seen Chernobyl, ***ushima, or the Three Mile Island documentary?

When active nuclear power plants meltdown they spread radioactive contamination for miles. In the case of an aerial bombardment the radioactive fallout would go much further.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

A little over half of Americans and a supermajority of like 70 something % of young Americans feel this way about our "greatest ally" Israel.

Israel literally stole enriched uranium and nuclear secrets from us to build their nuclear weapons program! And there are a lot of theories going around that they had a hand in Kennedy's assassination as he was about to cut them off and expose them for the traitorous *******s that they are.

See Apollo Affair

How Israel Deceived the U.S. and Built the Bomb
[url=https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/President-Kennedy-gave-Israel-a-strong-warning-about-its-nuclear-reactor-in-1963-589107][/url]
President Kennedy gave Israel a strong warning about its nuclear reactor in 1963[url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/07/israel-nuclear-weapons-dimona-deception-cia-jfk-eisenhower-lbj-ben-gurion/][/url]

This is why I find it so hypocritical when you point out Iran's fanaticism, which I don't really disagree about, when Israel is sitting there with at least 400+ nukes and is every bit as duplicitous and fanatical. Israel is one of the only countries who refuses to sign the nuclear proliferation treaty - which Iran has signed.

I'm not even going to get into all the classified weapons systems Israel has sold to the CCP behind our backs or the false flag USS Liberty attack that killed 34 American servicemen.

Israel has always been America's greatest enemy.

Iran is no spring peach, but I'm not going to start a war with them for Israel. Israel can fight its own wars.

Thankfully the tide is turning and at least half if not more of Americans agree with me.

Even on this boomercon message board only two Shabbos Goys (one being yourself) have vocally expressed their desire to pre-emptively attack Iran over retaining a civil nuclear energy program (Iran has said multiple times they have no interest in developing nuclear weapons).

---

I assumed this thread would devolve into an Israel rant at some point.

Maybe we should just nuke them. Finish what Hitler started. Would that satisfy you?

---

Like you want to do with Iran?

No.. I am not as bloodthirsty as you are.

I just want to cut them off, take away dual citizenship, and make their advocates register under FARA like every other representative of any other foreign country.

---

When I said I would support precision strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort, you actually thought I was suggesting we nuke Iran?

Maybe I've given you too much credit.

With respect to Israel, ok. Cut off financial support, dual citizenship and make them register under FARA. When that happens, I suspect it will be highly likely the ME goes up in flames, but if we don't care what happens to the rest of the world, I suppose that is a viable option. Let's just hope it doesn't spill over and draw us into a war.

---

Have you seen Chernobyl, ***ushima, or the Three Mile Island documentary?

When active nuclear power plants meltdown they spread radioactive contamination for miles. In the case of an aerial bombardment the radioactive fallout would go much further.

---

Did you think I meant hitting the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant with a guided missile? Um, no. Iran has multiple cites where it enriches uranium throughout the country. It also has numerous weapons plants. Those are what I would hit, not its nuclear reactor.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

You're bringing up conflicts from more than 250 years ago to try and claim that we are in danger of getting nuked by the UK in the future? Really??? My God, man.

It's post like these that scare the **** out of me. Some of you conservative wingnuts are bat **** crazy.

---

You claimed the UK had no history of exporting terrorism around the world. If you are that careless with your own words it is no wonder you are so cavalier about American lives and think throwing some misiles around will fix the problem.

Again, if missile strikes would fix the problem then why did Obama, Trump and Biden fail to order the strikes? You are running away from the most important question because you know the answer is that missile strikes will not stop Iran or else the strikes would have already happened.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.

But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.

---

So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.

Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.

I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.

Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?

Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

To add, respectfully, you are ignoring important facts. Under a first-past-the-post parliamentary system 7% of the population and growing is actually a big deal. Labour currently holds a massive 411 out of 650 seats in the House of Commons on just 33.7% of the vote in the 2024 elections (60% turnout). While 7% could be held in check under the American electoral system, that is an important voting bloc in the UK. Indeed, Labour gov't and certain local councils are already extremely responsive to their Muslim constituents and troubling news has been trickling out of the UK in that regard.

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

The newer generations end up just as radical as the older ones. Iran and Islam are built to make sure it happens that way. Sure, under economic duress or some extreme regime action (death of someone or policy) you'll get some public discord from time to time, but it eventually falls back in line.

---

Then the only rational conclusion is a clash of civilizations to end it once and for all?

Perhaps the worst thing Clinton did was condition the American public and politicians to the idea that we could engage in military conflicts with no boots on the ground. The Serbians had to be stopped, but Americans now seem to sincerely believe we can just handle everything from the air. We cannot. Decisive victory entails boots on the ground, regime change where possible (Marshall plan/Japan) or salting the earth, if no other course is possible. America has not had the political will for that type of engagement since Vietnam.

---

Not so much a clash of civilizations, but a clash of ideologies is inevitable. Islamism is completely incompatible with modernity and needs to be on the scrap heap of history like Christian Monarchy , feudalism, and many other historical systems. I'm not arguing that Iran is the hill where that dies on, but there is a structural conflict that will have to be settled.

---

Then the rational act would be to attack when you have the stronger hand, right? I think you're a great poster, going back to the old board days, but let's just think about this. If the fight is inevitable, and birth rates are plummeting in the west and western economies are deteriorating and Western European populations are dramatically changing, then when would be the best time for this clash of ideologies to occur? The answer is painfully obvious from a strategic point of view, but nobody is going to be honest about it.

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

The newer generations end up just as radical as the older ones. Iran and Islam are built to make sure it happens that way. Sure, under economic duress or some extreme regime action (death of someone or policy) you'll get some public discord from time to time, but it eventually falls back in line.

---

Then the only rational conclusion is a clash of civilizations to end it once and for all?

Perhaps the worst thing Clinton did was condition the American public and politicians to the idea that we could engage in military conflicts with no boots on the ground. The Serbians had to be stopped, but Americans now seem to sincerely believe we can just handle everything from the air. We cannot. Decisive victory entails boots on the ground, regime change where possible (Marshall plan/Japan) or salting the earth, if no other course is possible. America has not had the political will for that type of engagement since Vietnam.

---

Not so much a clash of civilizations, but a clash of ideologies is inevitable. Islamism is completely incompatible with modernity and needs to be on the scrap heap of history like Christian Monarchy , feudalism, and many other historical systems. I'm not arguing that Iran is the hill where that dies on, but there is a structural conflict that will have to be settled.

---

I think that is scheduled for the Valley of Megiddo, exact date and time TBD.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

What we need is a technological advance on missile defense - I do FULLY support Trump's Golden Dome. That would be change the calculus considerably for everyone.

---

Suspect the cost will be prohibitive.

---

I just want to be the ones that design and deploy it before anyone else does. China with a working Golden Dome defense system will be the largest threat the world has ever seen.

---

You could spend 20 trillion dollars on such a system....and within 5 years it will be obsolete.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

Clandestine operations are great, but one time stopgap measures. Not permanent solutions. Doubtful Iran ever gets stopped by Trojan horse malware, again. But we'll see. Mossad is free to do whatever it wants or does not want. I just don't want American boys and girls to be the underwriters of everybody else's national security. My social compact is with the United States of America (and the other country I am a natural-born citizen of). I am not a citizen of the world.

All I care about is American lives and give me fortress America. "Growing threat" was the moral and political justification for the total disasters in Vietnam and Iraq.

Now we hear the same drum beat with regards to Iran. I made my own decisions decades ago, but it hits different when your sons are about to register with the selective service in the next few years. I'm done with foreign adventurism and cavalier attitudes. I accept that we cannot possibly police the entire world.

---

Clandestine operations are a constant exercise, and have continued since Stuxnet. They don't make big headlines, but there have been a number of explosions and accidents at many different facilities in Iran. There's a determination to derail Iran because military solutions are much more difficult and raise the international stakes, hence the debate here.

And when it comes to the idea of "Fortress America," it's worth remembering that the deadliest attack by a foreign adversary on U.S. soil since the Civil War was carried out by a small group of Muslims armed with nothing more than box cutters. The primary point being that threats no longer respect borders or require military superiority in an era of cyberattacks, terrorism, and social disruption, which is the wheelhouse of Iranian extra-nationalism. A nuclear armed Iran is an exponential threat multiplier, and not something we can just sit back and observe how it plays out.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

You're bringing up conflicts from more than 250 years ago to try and claim that we are in danger of getting nuked by the UK in the future? Really??? My God, man.

It's post like these that scare the **** out of me. Some of you conservative wingnuts are bat **** crazy.

---

You claimed the UK had no history of exporting terrorism around the world. If you are that careless with your own words it is no wonder you are so cavalier about American lives and think throwing some misiles around will fix the problem.

Again, if missile strikes would fix the problem then why did Obama, Trump and Biden fail to order the strikes? You are running away from the most important question because you know the answer is that missile strikes will not stop Iran or else the strikes would have already happened.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

---

It's true no matter what definition you use. Even if you want to limit it to Islamic groups, Al Qaeda, MEK, ISIS-K and plenty of others are all current or former proxies of the US.

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

Clandestine operations are great, but one time stopgap measures. Not permanent solutions. Doubtful Iran ever gets stopped by Trojan horse malware, again. But we'll see. Mossad is free to do whatever it wants or does not want. I just don't want American boys and girls to be the underwriters of everybody else's national security. My social compact is with the United States of America (and the other country I am a natural-born citizen of). I am not a citizen of the world.

All I care about is American lives and give me fortress America. "Growing threat" was the moral and political justification for the total disasters in Vietnam and Iraq.

Now we hear the same drum beat with regards to Iran. I made my own decisions decades ago, but it hits different when your sons are about to register with the selective service in the next few years. I'm done with foreign adventurism and cavalier attitudes. I accept that we cannot possibly police the entire world.

---

1.)…..There's a determination to derail Iran because military solutions are much more difficult and raise the international stakes, hence the debate here.

2.)…..And when it comes to the idea of "Fortress America," it's worth remembering that the deadliest attack by a foreign adversary on U.S. soil since the Civil War was carried out by a small group of Muslims armed with nothing more than box cutters. The primary point being that threats no longer respect borders or require military superiority in an era of cyberattacks, terrorism, and social disruption….

---

1. That is a very lawyerly way of saying that it would be a disaster to invade Iran

A country many times larger than Iraq and many times more populated.

And since DC failed in Iraq…..it's absolutely a fact it would fail in a pacification war against Iran.

Holy quagmire Batman!!!!!

[Iran's area is 636,371.65 square miles, while Iraq's is 169,234 square]

[Iran's population is significantly larger than Iraq's. As of May 2025, Iran has a population of approximately 92 million people, while Iraq's population is around 46 million]




2. The idea of "Fortress America"…is a fact

No one can conquer the USA.

You would have to defeat our two ocean navy (the only one on earth) then take out our endless number of bases, then take out our outer defensive positions at Hawaii and Puerto Rico….before facing the endless hardship of the American interior and two strong mountain range defense lines…and massive armed populace resistance.

Impossible…..absolutely impossible

Our enemies can harm us in the modern world of terrorism and tech.

But we are a real fortress that no opponent on earth can conquer.

(As long as we don't tank our economy and create Rwanda /balkans style ethnic conflict at home)

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

Clandestine operations are great, but one time stopgap measures. Not permanent solutions. Doubtful Iran ever gets stopped by Trojan horse malware, again. But we'll see. Mossad is free to do whatever it wants or does not want. I just don't want American boys and girls to be the underwriters of everybody else's national security. My social compact is with the United States of America (and the other country I am a natural-born citizen of). I am not a citizen of the world.

All I care about is American lives and give me fortress America. "Growing threat" was the moral and political justification for the total disasters in Vietnam and Iraq.

Now we hear the same drum beat with regards to Iran. I made my own decisions decades ago, but it hits different when your sons are about to register with the selective service in the next few years. I'm done with foreign adventurism and cavalier attitudes. I accept that we cannot possibly police the entire world.

---

1.)…..There's a determination to derail Iran because military solutions are much more difficult and raise the international stakes, hence the debate here.

2.)…..And when it comes to the idea of "Fortress America," it's worth remembering that the deadliest attack by a foreign adversary on U.S. soil since the Civil War was carried out by a small group of Muslims armed with nothing more than box cutters. The primary point being that threats no longer respect borders or require military superiority in an era of cyberattacks, terrorism, and social disruption….

---

1. That is a very lawyerly way of saying that it would be a disaster to invade Iran

A country many times larger than Iraq and many times more populated.

And since DC failed in Iraq…..it's absolutely a fact it would fail in a pacification war against Iran.

Holy quagmire Batman!!!!!

[Iran's area is 636,371.65 square miles, while Iraq's is 169,234 square]

[Iran's population is significantly larger than Iraq's. As of May 2025, Iran has a population of approximately 92 million people, while Iraq's population is around 46 million]




2. The idea of "Fortress America"…is a fact

No one can conquer the USA



But we are a fortress that no opponent on earth and conquer.

---

LOL

Funny stuff right here.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. The US and Iran are parties to a treaty called the NPT. We've expressly recognized Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program and pledged to support it, in exchange for which they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. When Trump demands that they give up nuclear energy, he's effectively renouncing the treaty and signaling to Iran that they might as well ignore anything we say.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. When Iran consistently and continually violated the NPT, refusing to let the IAEA inspectors access to their facilities and hiding work they were performing, that's called under the law a prior material breach of the agreement. When a party flaunts and violates the terms of your agreement, then the law generally recognizes that the aggrieved party is no longer bound by same.

Iran's Repeated Violations of NPT

This is pretty simple, yet for some reason, a lawyer still doesn't get it.

---

Your article is well out of date. What it describes, with varying degrees of accuracy, are issues that were in play prior to the JCPOA. Obama saw that abandoning the treaty would have been counter-productive. Instead he negotiated an agreement, only to see it arbitrarily jettisoned by Trump.

Leaving all that aside, though, let's assume for a moment that you're right and there is no negotiated solution to be had. In that case we would have the same right to attack Iran that we have to attack any other country with a civilian nuclear program, i.e. none whatsoever.

---

I'm not defending Trump's actions. You brought up the NPT and I'm simply responding to why that's irrelevant at this point given Iran's well documented violations of same.

As for Iran, we'd have no less right to respond to the terrorist state involved in a proxy war with the U.S. than Russia had for invading Ukraine. But your double standard on that point is not a surprise.

---

If the NPT were irrelevant, we wouldn't be so concerned about keeping Iran a party to it. Those who are really interested in non-proliferation know that's the best way. They know inspections work. But they're not the ones you're paying attention to. The same warmongers who sold you the Iraq fiasco are pushing the same old propaganda, and you're buying it all over again. They never wanted a nuclear deal. They don't care about containing Iran's nuclear program. They care about one thing only, and that's regime change.

The choice between a ground war and a nuclear-armed Iran is a false dilemma. Our real choice is between diplomacy and another military ****show that will gain us nothing in the long run but another drawn-out defeat and a new nuclear enemy.

---

I wasn't suggesting the NPT is irrelevant to future negotiations with Iran. I was instead pointing out that is was absurd for you to suggest that we are morally and legally bound by the NPT when Iran has continually violated it.

I agree inspections work, when the IAEA is not hindered from performing them. Therein lies the issue.

Also agree that the choice between a ground war and nuclear Iran is a false dilemma, which is why I have never suggested same.

As for diplomacy, just like the Russian-Ukraine negotiation, it takes two to tango.

---

Iran's violations have been exaggerated, as is par for the course. And far from supporting their civilian nuclear program per the agreement, we have continually obstructed it through cyber-attacks, sanctions, and assassinations.

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

Clandestine operations are great, but one time stopgap measures. Not permanent solutions. Doubtful Iran ever gets stopped by Trojan horse malware, again. But we'll see. Mossad is free to do whatever it wants or does not want. I just don't want American boys and girls to be the underwriters of everybody else's national security. My social compact is with the United States of America (and the other country I am a natural-born citizen of). I am not a citizen of the world.

All I care about is American lives and give me fortress America. "Growing threat" was the moral and political justification for the total disasters in Vietnam and Iraq.

Now we hear the same drum beat with regards to Iran. I made my own decisions decades ago, but it hits different when your sons are about to register with the selective service in the next few years. I'm done with foreign adventurism and cavalier attitudes. I accept that we cannot possibly police the entire world.

---

1.)…..There's a determination to derail Iran because military solutions are much more difficult and raise the international stakes, hence the debate here.

2.)…..And when it comes to the idea of "Fortress America," it's worth remembering that the deadliest attack by a foreign adversary on U.S. soil since the Civil War was carried out by a small group of Muslims armed with nothing more than box cutters. The primary point being that threats no longer respect borders or require military superiority in an era of cyberattacks, terrorism, and social disruption….

---

1. That is a very lawyerly way of saying that it would be a disaster to invade Iran

A country many times larger than Iraq and many times more populated.

And since DC failed in Iraq…..it's absolutely a fact it would fail in a pacification war against Iran.

Holy quagmire Batman!!!!!

[Iran's area is 636,371.65 square miles, while Iraq's is 169,234 square]

[Iran's population is significantly larger than Iraq's. As of May 2025, Iran has a population of approximately 92 million people, while Iraq's population is around 46 million]




2. The idea of "Fortress America"…is a fact

No one can conquer the USA



But we are a fortress that no opponent on earth and conquer.

---

LOL

Funny stuff right here.

---

To conquer us would be the hardest invasion to attempt in human history

Massive military alliance to overcome, huge two ocean navy to try and destroy, massive geographical barriers to over come…if you could ever make landfall and get your troops here at all.

Impossible…

The US could have 85% of its entire population destroyed within 20 minutes.

As on any given day Russia has 4-6 boomer submarines offshore in international waters.

Each submarine has a minimum of 60 hydrogen bombs.

4 subs with 60 warheads each….. a total of 240 hydrogen bombs. More than enough to destroy the US utterly.

From undersea missile launch to target detonation….. from 20 to 40 minutes.

KaiBear said:

---

The US could have 85% of its entire population destroyed within 20 minutes.

As on any given day Russia has 4-6 boomer submarines offshore in international waters.

Each submarine has a minimum of 60 hydrogen bombs.

4 subs with 60 warheads each….. a total of 240 hydrogen bombs. More than enough to destroy the US utterly.

From undersea missile launch to target detonation….. from 20 to 40 minutes.

---

I very much doubt the substandard Russian military could engage in a nuclear attack on the USA

And if they did they would be whiped out within minutes


[Russia has significant issues in maintaining its nuclear arsenal, its ability to sustain and modernize it also faces serious challenges, including financial constraints and production issues. The aging of its nuclear weapons and delivery systems, coupled with the rising costs of maintaining them, raises concerns about the long-term viability of Russia's nuclear deterrent.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

Clandestine operations are great, but one time stopgap measures. Not permanent solutions. Doubtful Iran ever gets stopped by Trojan horse malware, again. But we'll see. Mossad is free to do whatever it wants or does not want. I just don't want American boys and girls to be the underwriters of everybody else's national security. My social compact is with the United States of America (and the other country I am a natural-born citizen of). I am not a citizen of the world.

All I care about is American lives and give me fortress America. "Growing threat" was the moral and political justification for the total disasters in Vietnam and Iraq.

Now we hear the same drum beat with regards to Iran. I made my own decisions decades ago, but it hits different when your sons are about to register with the selective service in the next few years. I'm done with foreign adventurism and cavalier attitudes. I accept that we cannot possibly police the entire world.

---

1.)…..There's a determination to derail Iran because military solutions are much more difficult and raise the international stakes, hence the debate here.

2.)…..And when it comes to the idea of "Fortress America," it's worth remembering that the deadliest attack by a foreign adversary on U.S. soil since the Civil War was carried out by a small group of Muslims armed with nothing more than box cutters. The primary point being that threats no longer respect borders or require military superiority in an era of cyberattacks, terrorism, and social disruption….

---

But we are a real fortress that no opponent on earth can conquer.

(As long as we don't tank our economy and create Rwanda /balkans style ethnic conflict at home)

---

Trump: "Hold my beer!"

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

Clandestine operations are great, but one time stopgap measures. Not permanent solutions. Doubtful Iran ever gets stopped by Trojan horse malware, again. But we'll see. Mossad is free to do whatever it wants or does not want. I just don't want American boys and girls to be the underwriters of everybody else's national security. My social compact is with the United States of America (and the other country I am a natural-born citizen of). I am not a citizen of the world.

All I care about is American lives and give me fortress America. "Growing threat" was the moral and political justification for the total disasters in Vietnam and Iraq.

Now we hear the same drum beat with regards to Iran. I made my own decisions decades ago, but it hits different when your sons are about to register with the selective service in the next few years. I'm done with foreign adventurism and cavalier attitudes. I accept that we cannot possibly police the entire world.

---

1.)…..There's a determination to derail Iran because military solutions are much more difficult and raise the international stakes, hence the debate here.

2.)…..And when it comes to the idea of "Fortress America," it's worth remembering that the deadliest attack by a foreign adversary on U.S. soil since the Civil War was carried out by a small group of Muslims armed with nothing more than box cutters. The primary point being that threats no longer respect borders or require military superiority in an era of cyberattacks, terrorism, and social disruption….

---

But we are a real fortress that no opponent on earth can conquer.

(As long as we don't tank our economy and create Rwanda /balkans style ethnic conflict at home)

---

Trump: "Hold my beer!"

---

Some would say spending decades exporting our industrial base overseas and running up huge trade deficits and massive debt….long before Trump….was the real danger to our economic success

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

Clandestine operations are great, but one time stopgap measures. Not permanent solutions. Doubtful Iran ever gets stopped by Trojan horse malware, again. But we'll see. Mossad is free to do whatever it wants or does not want. I just don't want American boys and girls to be the underwriters of everybody else's national security. My social compact is with the United States of America (and the other country I am a natural-born citizen of). I am not a citizen of the world.

All I care about is American lives and give me fortress America. "Growing threat" was the moral and political justification for the total disasters in Vietnam and Iraq.

Now we hear the same drum beat with regards to Iran. I made my own decisions decades ago, but it hits different when your sons are about to register with the selective service in the next few years. I'm done with foreign adventurism and cavalier attitudes. I accept that we cannot possibly police the entire world.

---

1.)…..There's a determination to derail Iran because military solutions are much more difficult and raise the international stakes, hence the debate here.

2.)…..And when it comes to the idea of "Fortress America," it's worth remembering that the deadliest attack by a foreign adversary on U.S. soil since the Civil War was carried out by a small group of Muslims armed with nothing more than box cutters. The primary point being that threats no longer respect borders or require military superiority in an era of cyberattacks, terrorism, and social disruption….

---

But we are a real fortress that no opponent on earth can conquer.

(As long as we don't tank our economy and create Rwanda /balkans style ethnic conflict at home)

---

Trump: "Hold my beer!"

---

Some would say spending decades exporting our industrial base overseas and running up huge trade deficits and massive debt….long before Trump….was the real danger to our economic success

---

There is some truth to that. I disagree with Trump in that I don't think going full Rwanda is the solution.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

Stuxnet has been by far the most successful inhibitor of the Iranian nuclear program thus far. That and the execution of scientists by the Mossad. Maybe an AI driven meltdown in the future?

And the UK has a 7% Islamic population, with less than that having citizen voting rights. It will take a minute before they have their finger on the trigger so to say.

---

Clandestine operations are great, but one time stopgap measures. Not permanent solutions. Doubtful Iran ever gets stopped by Trojan horse malware, again. But we'll see. Mossad is free to do whatever it wants or does not want. I just don't want American boys and girls to be the underwriters of everybody else's national security. My social compact is with the United States of America (and the other country I am a natural-born citizen of). I am not a citizen of the world.

All I care about is American lives and give me fortress America. "Growing threat" was the moral and political justification for the total disasters in Vietnam and Iraq.

Now we hear the same drum beat with regards to Iran. I made my own decisions decades ago, but it hits different when your sons are about to register with the selective service in the next few years. I'm done with foreign adventurism and cavalier attitudes. I accept that we cannot possibly police the entire world.

---

1.)…..There's a determination to derail Iran because military solutions are much more difficult and raise the international stakes, hence the debate here.

2.)…..And when it comes to the idea of "Fortress America," it's worth remembering that the deadliest attack by a foreign adversary on U.S. soil since the Civil War was carried out by a small group of Muslims armed with nothing more than box cutters. The primary point being that threats no longer respect borders or require military superiority in an era of cyberattacks, terrorism, and social disruption….

---

But we are a real fortress that no opponent on earth can conquer.

(As long as we don't tank our economy and create Rwanda /balkans style ethnic conflict at home)

---

Trump: "Hold my beer!"

---

Some would say spending decades exporting our industrial base overseas and running up huge trade deficits and massive debt….long before Trump….was the real danger to our economic success

---

There is some truth to that. I disagree with Trump in that I don't think going full Rwanda is the solution.

---

Oh see I disagree firmly

I think Trump is a strong antibiotic against rwanda/balkanization in America

He has demanded that the Ivy League not engage in antisemitism and/or racial preferences on campus.

He has demanded that the Civil Rights Act be interpreted to include ALL Americans….no matter their sex and ethnic background.

And he has been rewarded with strong gains among minorities (doubled the normal Repubyshare of the black voters and the Hispanic voters)

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The US could have 85% of its entire population destroyed within 20 minutes.

As on any given day Russia has 4-6 boomer submarines offshore in international waters.

Each submarine has a minimum of 60 hydrogen bombs.

4 subs with 60 warheads each….. a total of 240 hydrogen bombs. More than enough to destroy the US utterly.

From undersea missile launch to target detonation….. from 20 to 40 minutes.

---

I very much doubt the substandard Russian military could engage in a nuclear attack on the USA

And if they did they would be whiped out within minutes


[Russia has significant issues in maintaining its nuclear arsenal, its ability to sustain and modernize it also faces serious challenges, including financial constraints and production issues. The aging of its nuclear weapons and delivery systems, coupled with the rising costs of maintaining them, raises concerns about the long-term viability of Russia's nuclear deterrent.]

---

Doubt all you want.

But your narrative that the US is unconquerable is obviously ridiculous.

With above ground nuclear testing abolished for almost 50 years most Americans have zero comprehension of the horrific power of hydrogen bombs.

Or that they live under the daily threat of annihilation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

Do you support preemptively attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if they agreed to forfeit nuclear weapons but refuse to give up its nuclear energy program?

Because that is what the Jewish and Christian Zionist zealots are advocating for.

---

Happy to answer your questions after you answer mine.

---

You are making up hypothetical strawmans.

My question is at the heart of the very real situation that is being debated right now.

---

Despite the fact you will not answer my question, I will go ahead and answer yours.

I would not support striking Iran's nuclear facilities if it will give up enriching uranium, as Trump's team has requested. But Iran is unwilling to do so. Why? Because it understands that the only way to create a nuclear weapon is to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons program.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2xnkrd4eo

So, speaking of hypothetical strawman, that is exactly what you just posed.

---

How do you run a nuclear power plant without enriched uranium?

Please explain that to me.

---

You don't, which is why Iran would essentially be giving up its nuclear program altogether. It's essentially what Trump demanded, and why he pulled out of the deal authored by Obama. Are you actually saying Trump was wrong?

---

It's not only wrong, but absurd. Trump has no right to demand such a thing.

---

What's wrong is for Iran to be a pariah state that sends terrorists out into the world to wreak havoc. What's wrong is for Iran to be a country that spreads Islamic terror throughout the ME. They've forfeited their ability to unfettered access to nuclear technology.

Another example of your moral bankruptcy and misplaced priorities. You have no shame.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. The US and Iran are parties to a treaty called the NPT. We've expressly recognized Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program and pledged to support it, in exchange for which they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. When Trump demands that they give up nuclear energy, he's effectively renouncing the treaty and signaling to Iran that they might as well ignore anything we say.

---

I've been explaining this for years, and you still don't get it. When Iran consistently and continually violated the NPT, refusing to let the IAEA inspectors access to their facilities and hiding work they were performing, that's called under the law a prior material breach of the agreement. When a party flaunts and violates the terms of your agreement, then the law generally recognizes that the aggrieved party is no longer bound by same.

Iran's Repeated Violations of NPT

This is pretty simple, yet for some reason, a lawyer still doesn't get it.

---

Your article is well out of date. What it describes, with varying degrees of accuracy, are issues that were in play prior to the JCPOA. Obama saw that abandoning the treaty would have been counter-productive. Instead he negotiated an agreement, only to see it arbitrarily jettisoned by Trump.

Leaving all that aside, though, let's assume for a moment that you're right and there is no negotiated solution to be had. In that case we would have the same right to attack Iran that we have to attack any other country with a civilian nuclear program, i.e. none whatsoever.

---

I'm not defending Trump's actions. You brought up the NPT and I'm simply responding to why that's irrelevant at this point given Iran's well documented violations of same.

As for Iran, we'd have no less right to respond to the terrorist state involved in a proxy war with the U.S. than Russia had for invading Ukraine. But your double standard on that point is not a surprise.

---

If the NPT were irrelevant, we wouldn't be so concerned about keeping Iran a party to it. Those who are really interested in non-proliferation know that's the best way. They know inspections work. But they're not the ones you're paying attention to. The same warmongers who sold you the Iraq fiasco are pushing the same old propaganda, and you're buying it all over again. They never wanted a nuclear deal. They don't care about containing Iran's nuclear program. They care about one thing only, and that's regime change.

The choice between a ground war and a nuclear-armed Iran is a false dilemma. Our real choice is between diplomacy and another military ****show that will gain us nothing in the long run but another drawn-out defeat and a new nuclear enemy.

---

I wasn't suggesting the NPT is irrelevant to future negotiations with Iran. I was instead pointing out that is was absurd for you to suggest that we are morally and legally bound by the NPT when Iran has continually violated it.

I agree inspections work, when the IAEA is not hindered from performing them. Therein lies the issue.

Also agree that the choice between a ground war and nuclear Iran is a false dilemma, which is why I have never suggested same.

As for diplomacy, just like the Russian-Ukraine negotiation, it takes two to tango.

---

Iran's violations have been exaggerated, as is par for the course. And far from supporting their civilian nuclear program per the agreement, we have continually obstructed it through cyber-attacks, sanctions, and assassinations.

---

No surprise you would downplay their violations, but the IAEA felt their concealing of nuclear activities, and failure to declare nuclear materials and facilities was at least circumstantial evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and with good reason.

The obstructionism by and large occurred after it was discovered they have violated the safeguards agreement - also for good reason. You can't ask the West to abide by an agreement which it was found Iran continually violated.

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The US could have 85% of its entire population destroyed within 20 minutes.

As on any given day Russia has 4-6 boomer submarines offshore in international waters.

Each submarine has a minimum of 60 hydrogen bombs.

4 subs with 60 warheads each….. a total of 240 hydrogen bombs. More than enough to destroy the US utterly.

From undersea missile launch to target detonation….. from 20 to 40 minutes.

---

I very much doubt the substandard Russian military could engage in a nuclear attack on the USA

And if they did they would be whiped out within minutes


[Russia has significant issues in maintaining its nuclear arsenal, its ability to sustain and modernize it also faces serious challenges, including financial constraints and production issues. The aging of its nuclear weapons and delivery systems, coupled with the rising costs of maintaining them, raises concerns about the long-term viability of Russia's nuclear deterrent.]

---

.

The U.S. military disagrees with you.

Bigger threat at this point is China. The idea of fortress America in the age of hypersonic missiles with multiple nuclear warheads is an interesting one. Get a viable missile defense system and maybe we can talk, but thus far we are coming up short on that front. China and Russia could inflict lots of damage on US cities in a matter of minutes. It's silly to think otherwise.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The US could have 85% of its entire population destroyed within 20 minutes.

As on any given day Russia has 4-6 boomer submarines offshore in international waters.

Each submarine has a minimum of 60 hydrogen bombs.

4 subs with 60 warheads each….. a total of 240 hydrogen bombs. More than enough to destroy the US utterly.

From undersea missile launch to target detonation….. from 20 to 40 minutes.

---

I very much doubt the substandard Russian military could engage in a nuclear attack on the USA

And if they did they would be whiped out within minutes


[Russia has significant issues in maintaining its nuclear arsenal, its ability to sustain and modernize it also faces serious challenges, including financial constraints and production issues. The aging of its nuclear weapons and delivery systems, coupled with the rising costs of maintaining them, raises concerns about the long-term viability of Russia's nuclear deterrent.]

---

.

China and Russia could inflict lots of damage on US cities in a matter of minutes. It's silly to think otherwise.

---

90% of our people have zero comprehension of the threat they are under.

Most have no clue about the constant presence of Russian nuclear submarines off our coasts.

And they have been there every single day for decades.

For that reason a 2nd home in the southern hemisphere has some serious appeal.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Question for those who are cool with despots who promote global terrorism having nuclear weapons. Is there just an assumption on your part that terrorist states will behave in a reasonable manner? So, say, the Islamist zealots get their hands on a nuclear weapon capable of hitting our allies or the US mainland, we just assume they're not going to use them because of the threat of mutually-assured destruction?

If so, that's an interesting theory. I've not known Islamist zealots to behave reasonably, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Edit: That's not to say I want a groundwar with Iran. But I would be perfectly fine with a dozen or so precision guided missiles hitting nuclear facilities if it could prevent a nuclear war at some point in the future.

---

They won't act rationally.

Precision strikes will not prevent their future ability to have nukes, it will only delay them at best (recall, Iran has fortified its nuclear facilities to mitigate bombing attacks). If your goal is truly to prevent Iran from having Nukes forever then you are in the regime change business. Given Iran's international relationships, the reality of the local populace on the ground, and America's lack of political will to fight a war on a scorched Earth basis …. Even if you could somehow win a ground war in Iran despite the flood of technical and intelligence support from China/Russia, you then are looking a long drawn out commitment in country measured in at least decade, perhaps even half-a-century. It will make Vietnam, The Troubles in Northern Ireland and Bush's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan look like the minor leagues. Even if you can win the ground war and successfully regime change/westernize the population over a period of decades, you'll be creating an eternity's worth of recruiting material for other extremists spread out throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

---

I prefer delay to handing them nukes, so I'll take the precision strikes as opposed to throwing up my hands, but thanks.

---

Pushing Iran further into the arms of China/Russia, further legitimizing the hardliners within Iran, and feeding into another decade's worth of recruiting propaganda for Middle East extremists and further entangling us into the quagmire that is the Middle East.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. If it were, it would have already happened. The real solution to Iran is for generational turnover to liberalize the population. Interim attacks make thet harder to happen.

---

Who said it was simple? The question is, do we let Iran continue down a path to acquiring the materials necessary to make nuclear weapons? It appears your answer is yes, and let's just keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. Sorry, but I don't believe that to be a viable or sane alternative.

We've been hoping for decades that Iran would liberalize, and it just hasn't happened. They're already joined at the hip with China and Russia, and have been for years, so that's just not a valid concern at this point. We can continue to try the same thing over and over and expect different results, I suppose, but once again, that appears to be a foolish endeavor.

You're right, there are no easy answers. But letting an Islamic terrorist state have unfettered access to nuclear weapons is foolish, by an objective measure.

---

Listen to yourself: "letting [another sovereign]…" as if the USA has the power, authority and ability to stop Iran permanently from doing something. If you really want to stop Iran (or any other Islamist state) from accessing nuclear weapons) then you better be ready for 20+ years of American boots on the ground and all that entails. Including the second and third order effects*. It is beyond foolish to think we live in a Top Gun: Maverick script. The ideal of preventing Iran from having nukes is only achievable to the extent that American boys and girls are over there getting blown up while trying to effectuate regime change. That too is foolish by any objective measure.

JD Vance made a rather interesting point when he said the UK is among the most dangerous countries in the world because it is a nuclear power and the swing voting bloc in its electorate will soon be conservative, Islamist voters. Are you going to push for war with the UK the day Vance's prediction comes to pass?

---

Are you one of those individuals who is of the opinion that nation states have no right to strike other nation states that pose a grave threat? Are you one of those people who was against US participation in every major world war? If so, we probably aren't going to come to an agreement on this. I do not believe rogue terrorist states have a right to acquire nuclear technology, either morally or legally, as you apparently do.

I also know that precision strikes have been used to great effect in numerous world conflicts. Hell, it got the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and pretty much destroyed the Islamic State a few years ago. I think we have the ability to significantly set back the Iranian state without a ground war. In other words, I do not believe it is the binary choice you do.

That said, I am curious as to your suggestion, since you haven't responded to my initial question. Do we just throw up our hands, allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and just keep our fingers crossed the Islamist zealots will behave reasonably? Is that your solution?

---

It is clearly a binary choice or Obama, Trump or Biden would have put a stop to it already. You really think that Obama (especially with HRC at state!), Trump and Biden would have all sat idly by if they could stop Iran with missile strikes? The only reason the missile strikes have not happened is because the people who would otherwise order them are convinced the missile strikes won't work and there is nothing to be gained. This is the easiest and most obvious game theory scenario ever.

Life is not an episode of Star Wars or Top Gun. There is no magical ventilation shaft that if you perfectly complete the cannonball run you'll avert disaster.

As far as Iraq and ISIS, you must see the difference between attacking Iraq's military and ISIS in the open desert and striking facilites buried deep underground? There is a reason NORAD is deep in the mountains.

Meanwhile, an ineffective attack will only further entrench us in the Middle East and fuel Islamist propaganda. Every single time that the American people are told "must stop Iran" it serves to just mentally condition Americans for an eventual ground war. It is clear as day that is where this is going and I praise God every day that Hillary wasn't elected, or we'd already be there.

My answer to you is that I don't think Iran is going to act rationally and I do think they'll eventually get nukes. So what do you do then? If you think it is the moral imperative for this to be stopped then ground war is the only way and I kindly suggest you and your children pick up a weapon and accept a billet. Preferably in the infantry. But my kids are about to be draft eligible and my answer is hell no to any military adventurism.

Fortify and pray is the only answer I have, short of ground war. And I am no on a ground war.

The obvious answer is for Iran to liberalize. The next obvious answer is for China and Russia to keep Iran inline, but China and Russia aren't exactly in the mood to cooperate with the US right now.

Please answer my question: what are you going to do about the UK? It is highly unlikely that the UK follows SA's path and disarms when the obvious eventual demographic/political outcome becomes undeniable. Are you going to press for us to invade and disarm the UK?

I am one of those people who says that Iraq and Vietnam were massive mistakes and I hope they are never repeated. Are you one of those people that doesn't learn from foreign policy blunders?

---

Kind of what I figured. Your suggestion is hope and pray for the best. Sorry but I think that's absolutely ******ed, but to each his own.

Rest assured your kids will be involved in a war at some point with that mentality. Let's just hope it doesn't end the world.

As for the UK, if it had a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world there you might have a point. Get back to me once it begins to behave like Iran.

Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. But I don't agree with you it's a binary choice.

---

If you truly believe that missile strikes could prevent or materially hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions then you must contend with the fact that Obama, Trump and Biden failed to launch those missile strikes over the past 16 years. All three are/were highly incentivized to prevent a nuclear Iran. There have been no known material technological improvements to our underground strike capabilities during their tenure. So a very straight forward question: why did all three of them fail to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities if it is achievable? You could possibly write off Obama and his stupid plan to have Iran act as a counterweight to Saudi, but even then HRC would have been pushing for a strike. Trump almost certainly would have done it and for as stupid as Jake Sullivan is, even he would have advocated for an strike under Biden. The most plausible explanation is that there have been no American missile strikes on iran's nuclear capabilities because the strikes would be ineffective. I'm willing to entertain any other plausible explanations you have for why the American government has failed to use this amazing power you seem to be so certain exists.

As for the UK and waiting for them to have a history of exporting terrorism throughout the world: are you ignorant or just being obtuse? We overthrew their tyrannical government. The things the British Army did in Northern Ireland would make Hamas blush. We can talk about what they did to Scotland. Then we'll touch on their conquest and imperialism throughout the non-English speaking world. If anything, the UK is the single most prolific exporter of terrorism (political violence) in the history of the world. We ourselves had to fight to escape their tyranny.

Sir, the political violence conducted by His Majesty's armed forces and clandestine services in the name of the Crown is well-established, known and the historical record is uncontested. What more do you need to see in order to believe that the UK has a history of exporting political violence to every single inhabited continent on the planet? What more do you need to know? So I ask again: when the nuclear armed UK is democratically responsive to its growing islamist population , what will you do then? Are we to invade the UK? Same story may play out in France. What then?

---

You're bringing up conflicts from more than 250 years ago to try and claim that we are in danger of getting nuked by the UK in the future? Really??? My God, man.

It's post like these that scare the **** out of me. Some of you conservative wingnuts are bat **** crazy.

---

You claimed the UK had no history of exporting terrorism around the world. If you are that careless with your own words it is no wonder you are so cavalier about American lives and think throwing some misiles around will fix the problem.

Again, if missile strikes would fix the problem then why did Obama, Trump and Biden fail to order the strikes? You are running away from the most important question because you know the answer is that missile strikes will not stop Iran or else the strikes would have already happened.

---

Far from being cavalier with my words, I assumed you were a reasonable person operating in good faith, and understood what I meant by that term. Apparently not. I suppose under your overly broad definition of terrorism, the US is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. Amiright?

As for the missile strikes, you're making lots of unwarranted assumptions. There are plenty of motivations for not striking Iran, including the idea that the US could bring them back to the table through sanctions and incentives. I actually agree with Sam that the best way to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomacy. I would employ missile strikes only as a last resort. And I don't think at any point we've reached that stage. I suspect our past and current president feel the same.

But if the choice is between doing nothing, as you suggest, or trying to prevent them from nuking another country, I take my chances on a precision strike.

---

So it is my fault that you are making factually incorrect statements and we need to read deeper meaning into what you are saying? Sure, we'll all just read your mind for your intended meaning instead of you actually typing out what you mean. Give me a break. Just own your own carelessness. And FYI, it was 50 years ago that the British Army was running roughshod in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Re: "last resort" I find your approach to be unrealistic and immature. You don't strike as a last resort. The problem isn't the physical capability. That can always be rebuilt and improved on. You strike to prevent the development of technical expertise and experience. That is the actual hard part. As long as the Iranians are taking good notes and backing up their files, then your last resort missile strike is only delaying the inevitable until they build their facilities deep enough and far enough underground in a secure enough place that we can't reach.

Recall, we have military installations designed to withstand nuclear strikes because of how deep they are buried underground. Do you think Iran is not capable of doing the same? Do you think we have some magic bunker buster bomb that can do a job a nuclear strike cannot? Do you think Iran cannot just build back deeper and further isolated? The scary thing is not the physical capacity but the technical expertise. And if you're going to strike, you do it to prevent technical expertise. Otherwise, all you are doing is kicking the can down the road.

I don't think that the missile proponents have actually thought of the technical feasibility of their desired plan of action.

Re: failure to launch strikes during the past 16 years. Your explanations are already violating your key assumption: that Iran is not rational. Your explanation for failing to strike their facilites is that perhaps Obama, Trump and Biden were hoping to get Iran to engage like a rational actor by coming to the negotiating table? Sam can assume that Iran will behave rationally (perhaps he's right or weong), but your whole schtick is that Iran is not rational so they cannot get a bomb. Who is hoping and crossing their fingers now?

Look, I just want people to be honest. Ideological commitment to preventing Iran from getting nukes almost certainly ends with American boys and girls in country on the ground for years and years. I'm not willing to go there.

---

Buddy, you've made the argument that we need to be concerned about a longtime ally having nukes because of things that happened 250 plus years, and now you want to argue semantics? Cut the bull***** It was a ridiculous position on its face, which you're a smart guy and should well know.

The position that Iran having nukes is inevitable ignores what Israel has been able to do with far less than bunker busting bombs (though they seem to have some pretty good ones if their recent strikes are any indication). Intelligence reports state that it significantly set back the program. As Atl alluded to, those clandestine operations have been pretty effective.

No, like you, I don't trust Iran to act rational with a nuke. Does that mean we don't exhaust all diplomatic efforts before we decide on a military strike? Of course not, as there's always the possibility that they can be incentivized to not pursue that course of action. Moreover, it's a lot easier to negotiate when they don't have nukes in hand.

Ironically, like Sam, I simply don't accept your false dilemma between a ground war and a nuclear armed Iran. I'm also not so incredibly naive as to believe we can fortify our country from a nuclear attack. I'm just not willing to throw up my hands and give up as you are.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

The US could have 85% of its entire population destroyed within 20 minutes.

As on any given day Russia has 4-6 boomer submarines offshore in international waters.

Each submarine has a minimum of 60 hydrogen bombs.

4 subs with 60 warheads each….. a total of 240 hydrogen bombs. More than enough to destroy the US utterly.

From undersea missile launch to target detonation….. from 20 to 40 minutes.

---

I very much doubt the substandard Russian military could engage in a nuclear attack on the USA

And if they did they would be whiped out within minutes


[Russia has significant issues in maintaining its nuclear arsenal, its ability to sustain and modernize it also faces serious challenges, including financial constraints and production issues. The aging of its nuclear weapons and delivery systems, coupled with the rising costs of maintaining them, raises concerns about the long-term viability of Russia's nuclear deterrent.]

---

.

China and Russia could inflict lots of damage on US cities in a matter of minutes. It's silly to think otherwise.

---

90% of our people have zero comprehension of the threat they are under.

Most have no clue about the constant presence of Russian nuclear submarines off our coasts.

And they have been there every single day for decades.

For that reason a 2nd home in the southern hemisphere has some serious appeal.

---

Yup. The nuclear subs are by far the biggest threat as their payload can reach its intended target in under 15 minutes.

Incredible to me that in this day and age fellow conservatives could believe a "fortified" America need not worry about nuclear weapons. We have some seriously uninformed voters on "our" side of the aisle.