We are an extremely difficult opponent for direct military combat. No doubt. The problem is the type of asymmetrical warfare our opponents could engage in would pit us against our most challenging opponent; ourselves. We're not well built for long term societal distress. Hopefully, we could be effective at protecting against those sorts of attacks that would create those situations.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:1.)…..There's a determination to derail Iran because military solutions are much more difficult and raise the international stakes, hence the debate here.DallasBear9902 said:ATL Bear said: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?DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said: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.DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said: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.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.
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?
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?
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.
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 and conquer.
(As long as we don't tank our economy and create Rwanda /balkans style ethnic conflict at home)
As to your first point, correct a ground war in Iran would be extremely difficult, not to mention dangerous to American soldiers. If heavy force is required to deal with Iran, perhaps an intense and sustained aerial and naval assault could be deployed until such time as they surrender or their military and nuclear capabilities have been sufficiently destroyed. No post action nation building, humanitarian aid, or anything similar. Let them pick up their own pieces.