if iran enriches too much nuclear fuel, america should bomb them
in Politics

linate · June 2019

'm not saying that america should invade iran. just bomb them. if iran was stupid enough to wage a retaliatory war, they'd be blown away. after all, the usa's military is bigger than the next ten countries in the world combined, with iran puny in comparison, and the usa has thousands of nukes, which iran has none. it's clear iran is one of the largest sponsors of terrorism in the world, and given nukes, they would get worse and be able to hold the world hostage. we can't let that happen.

iran said it's going to probably go past the limits of nuclear fuel that was set by the treaty they were in, so it's becoming clear punishment will probably be in order.

YeshuaRedeemed · June 2019

I think we should not go to war without the help of our allies.

Plaffelvohfen · June 2019

@linate

So you would bomb the crap out of civilians to "punish" their leaders?? Oh, America is such a decent and moral nation, yeah........

Ampersand · June 2019

Nope.

1) The USA is the one who has broken the agreement.

2) Both the USA and Iran are signatories of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Among other things this confirms their commitment to allowing access to nuclear energy for peaceful domestic puposes.

3) The limit is arbitrary and does not signify Iran developing nuclear weapons.

It would be immoral to bomb Iran for making use of rights that the USA is meant to protect due to conflict over an agreement that the USA broke.

linate · June 2019

@Plaffelvohfen

i would have kept the obama negotiation in place. i can respect trump getting out, but only if he's willing to back up the fall out with force, if necessary. only because iran was getting a bunch of nukes to point at israel and supporting terrorist groups and proxy fighters.

the bottom line is that there iran cannot have nukes. the red line needs to be whether or not inspectors are let in. and them making too much fuel perhaps should be a red line as well, cause the inspections weren't very ironclad. that is, i think we had to give iran like three weeks or so notice before we could inspect. it's a glaring hole in the agreement.

linate · June 2019

@Plaffelvohfen

i would have kept the obama negotiation in place. i can respect trump getting out, but only if he's willing to back up the fall out with force, if necessary. only because iran was getting a bunch of nukes to point at israel and supporting terrorist groups and proxy fighters.

the bottom line is that there iran cannot have nukes. the red line needs to be whether or not inspectors are let in. and them making too much fuel perhaps should be a red line as well, cause the inspections weren't very ironclad. that is, i think we had to give iran like three weeks or so notice before we could inspect. it's a glaring hole in the agreement.

linate · June 2019

@YeshuaRedeemed @Ampersand

see my above post

linate · June 2019

@Plaffelvohfen

i didn't say we should bomb the crap out of their civilians. eventually, if it is warranted based on what i've said, we should do enough to dismantle their nuclear program. a few years ago when obama was negotiating the treaty, iran said it planned to expand its nuclear program and wipe israel off the map. israel said they were going to invade or bomb iran if inspectors weren't let in. i dont like the situation we're in, but that still needs to be the red line, whether or not inspectors are let in. israel can't take a ten percent chance at one hundred percent annihilation, and the usa can't risk millions annihilated.

whiteflame · June 2019

So, let's assume for a second that you're entirely correct in your characterization of what Iran has done to the US and the world in their efforts to build a nuclear weapon, and that they, at least theoretically, have the capability to enrich enough plutonium or uranium for the purpose of making such a weapon.

First off, when do we determine that they crossed a line? How we do we determine that? What tools can we use to ascertain how much they've enriched, and when will we determine that they've gone too far? Saying things like "too much" indicates that such a point exists, yet you haven't defined what that point is or how we will even be able to gauge when they've reached it. Even when we had established some semblance of a relationship with them, they weren't exactly throwing open the doors to all their facilities, and we cannot establish this simply by satellite surveillance. So, where's this information going to come from?

Second, assuming that we could determine this point and bomb them, and assuming that that bombing would be extremely well-directed and not target any civilian buildings (a long shot, considering that many of the buildings in which these are being made are power plants and nuclear fallout is... a thing), can you honestly tell me that you expect them to calmly and quietly stop pursuing nuclear weapons after a round of bombing? Iran doesn't need to wage a retaliatory war - they can simply step up what they've been doing and fund proxy wars through Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. It's entirely plausible that they could even get an actual nuclear weapon to one such group, which would they be able to use it with impunity because they are, effectively, stateless. They have no civilians to care about. Beyond that, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that other countries would see a unilateral preemptive strike against another sovereign nation as perfectly fine. Regardless of the intelligence the US has (and we don't exactly have good history with regards to the accuracy of said intelligence, see: Iraq), that's a huge pill to swallow. Even if other leaders in the region and around the world decide it's not worth a response, the people of these nations might see things a little differently. Generating mass riots in the Middle East seems like a poor way to improve stability in the region.

I just don't see a way in which this works out well for the US or... well... basically anyone. It might be punishing to them, but it's going to lead to substantial consequences for us and our allies, particularly Israel who is much closer and more vulnerable to reprisals.

TKDB · June 2019

No.

"if iran enriches too much nuclear fuel, america should bomb them"

My guess, is that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, along with all, of the various representatives who represent, all of the branches of the US military, are having discussions with the President, to see how to proceed, with the current situation.

Just another chapter, in learning how things play out via history.

We went through the Iranian hostage crisis in the past, so, this as well, is just another chapter with Iran.

Just like the chapters with North Korea, and Russia.

linate · June 2019

@whiteflame

well, then, what do you suggest? are you okay with iran having a bomb, and if so, how on earth can you justify that?

what if they dont allow inspectors in? no one can tell whether they are making a bomb, and theyve been giving every indication they intend to do so even while obama was president.

what if they make too much fuel? i dont know what the magic number is, as i'm not expert. i do know i beilieve we had to give them advance warning if we were going to inspect, like around a month. so that allows them to hide fuel, especially if they are openly making more than was agreed on.

i can respect being diplomatic here, and trying to comprise on sanctions. but i'm just arguing in the abstract 'what if' hypotheticals, and you give no rational alternatives to what i'm arguing.

linate · June 2019

there's no good reason to not allow inspectors in if their intent is peaceful. that has to be a red line.

linate · June 2019

@TKDB

i'm gessing you are right that this will blow over, but i'm just posing hypotheticals that look like they could play out, and you are not giving rational alternatives to what i'm arguing.

whiteflame · June 2019

@linate

Not particularly. I think the previous treaty was a decent step, but the reality is that we will be facing a nuclear Iran, like it or not. I don't think bombing them is going to fix that, no matter how thorough we are, and I don't think any intervention we could take will adequately prevent it. That being said, I don't think our only measures against them need be preventing them from acquiring the materials necessary to make a bomb. The tech to launch it for real distance is still far out of their grasp, and even if they did have it, basic mutually assured destruction keeps them from using it. They're too valuable to give up to a terrorist organization, even one they could rely upon like Hezbollah, simply because they could be captured and traced back to Iran. If we force their hand, though, that's exactly what they'll do because they have little else to lose. Honestly, our best tactic is to create a relationship will them that puts Iran in a position similar to that of other stable Middle Eastern countries: make it more damaging for them to go on the offensive than to simply be a part of the larger economic and geopolitical system.

linate · June 2019

@whiteflame

we dont have to take iran with nukes as inevitable. it might be, and probably is because we will have weak presidents. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, preferably with diplomacy, but even with force if my hypotheticals play out the way im describing. you still give no rational alternative should those hypotheticals play out

TKDB · June 2019

@linate

Why don't you reach out to some possible ex military veterans, who maybe live in your surrounding neighborhood, and get their real world perspectives based on your forum conversation?

TKDB · June 2019

https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/situation-room-briefing-on-iran-crisis-concludes-as-mcconnell-says-measured-response-coming.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQDoAEC#aoh=15610792617608&amp_ct=1561079409801&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/situation-room-briefing-on-iran-crisis-concludes-as-mcconnell-says-measured-response-coming

"Situation Room briefing on Iran crisis concludes, as McConnell says 'measured' response is coming"

"Top administration officials and lawmakers have left the White House after a more than hourlong classified briefing about Iran's sudden downing of an American surveillance drone in the Middle East -- and a "measured" U.S. response, they suggested, is likely coming soon.

Amid mounting tension between the U.S. and Iran, the White House earlier Thursday invited House and Senate leaders and Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees to meet with President Trump in the White House's secure Situation Room.

Others who arrived for the meeting included CIA Director Gina Haspel, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Army Secretary Mark Esper, whom Trump has said he'll nominate as defense secretary.

Shanahan was spotted outside the White House carrying a folder stamped "SECRET/NOFORN," an intelligence classification category prohibiting distribution to anyone outside the government.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Fox News that "we had a good briefing" and that the Trump administration would engage in "measured responses." "

"McConnell confirmed the U.S.'s firm position that the drone was operating in international airspace, even as Iran has tried to make the case that the drone had "violated" Iranian airspace.

In a statement, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy and Ranking Members Rep. Michael McCaul (House Foreign Affairs), Rep. Devin Nunes (House Intelligence), and Rep. Mac Thornberry (House Armed Services) all condemned Iran's "direct attack," and demanded "measured" retaliation.

"Iran directly attacked a United States asset over international waters," the Republicans wrote. "This provocation comes a week after they attacked and destroyed two commercial tankers in international waters. There must be a measured response to these actions. President Trump and his national security team remain clear-eyed on the situation and what must be done in response to increased Iranian aggression. In Congress, we stand ready to support our men and women in uniform, our country, and our allies in the region.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, issued a separate statement after the briefing calling for calm.

TRUMP SAYS IRAN’S US DRONE SHOOT-DOWN MAY HAVE BEEN ‘MISTAKE,’ BUT ‘COUNTRY WILL NOT STAND FOR IT’

“In light of the targeting of an unmanned U.S. drone by Iran, it is essential that we remain fully engaged with our allies, recognize that we are not dealing with a responsible adversary and do everything in our power to de-escalate.

“This is a dangerous, high-tension situation that requires a strong, smart and strategic, not reckless, approach," Pelosi said.

Speaking to reporters, Pelosi said she was also convinced that U.S. intelligence was correct in its assessment that the drone was in international airspace when it was shot down. But, Pelosi added, the Trump administration legally would need to obtain Congress' approval before taking military action.

"We make it very clear that to get involved in any military activities, we must have a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)," Pelosi cautioned. "

"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he told the president during the briefing that there should be a "robust, open debate," and that Congress should "have a real say."

He said he's worried the administration "may bumble into a war."

“We have an amendment supported by every Democrat to the NDAA in the Senate, led by Senator Udall, which would require Congressional approval of any funding for a conflict in Iran," Schumer said in a statement. "It's supported by all Democrats in the Senate. We are asking leader McConnell to do the right thing and give us a vote next week on the NDAA on that amendment.”

Footage on social media also showed Schumer appearing to celebrate after the briefing, but Schumer later clarified that he was happy his mother had been released from the hospital.

Hours earlier, the Pentagon released video showing the smoke trail of a Navy drone that was shot out of the sky over the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, in what military officials described as an "unprovoked attack."

Trump told reporters that Iran made a "very big mistake" but also said he has the feeling that it might have been the result of someone being "loose" or doing something "stupid."

The U.S. Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk, an unmanned aircraft with a wingspan larger than that of a Boeing 737, was brought down by an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps surface-to-air missile that was fired from near Goruk on Wednesday night, according to Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, head of U.S. Air Forces Central Command. "

So the civilian chain of command, is having a conversation, basically over, the same theme of this specific forum.

whiteflame · June 2019

@linate

I’m not sure what criteria you’re using to claim that a nuclear Iran is not inevitable. If you have evidence that a targeted strike on their facilities would be effective in both the short and long term without an invasion or occupation, by all means, present it. I don’t see why I should have to address your hypotheticals (nor am I clear, on re-reading your posts, what those hypotheticals are), especially as you don’t provide any support for those hypotheticals go come to pass.

You have this odd fixation on my ability to address the same problems you are attempting to hit. Two things on that. First, I would say that what I’ve suggested is a potentially viable alternative aimed at addressing the threat. I think accepting the reality that there will be a nuclear Iran is part of that solution, so by design, I’m not addressing it the same way you are. Second, debate isn’t solely about comparing two potential options. You made this post to proclaim your support for a given policy choice; you shouldn’t be upset that people are poking holes in it without providing alternatives. I would say that the status quo is better than what you’re suggesting, and that’s the only comparison we necessarily must make.

Ampersand · June 2019

linate said:

@Plaffelvohfen

i would have kept the obama negotiation in place. i can respect trump getting out, but only if he's willing to back up the fall out with force, if necessary. only because iran was getting a bunch of nukes to point at israel and supporting terrorist groups and proxy fighters.

the bottom line is that there iran cannot have nukes. the red line needs to be whether or not inspectors are let in. and them making too much fuel perhaps should be a red line as well, cause the inspections weren't very ironclad. that is, i think we had to give iran like three weeks or so notice before we could inspect. it's a glaring hole in the agreement.

They are letting inspector in and have been for a couple of decades. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the body responsible for monitoring the usage of atomic energy inspects them constantly.

They are also not making nuclear weapons and even the USA government aside from a few people like Trump who shoot off their mouth without thinking accept this - the issue wasn't that they were making weapons but that the USA was worried they could use their peaceful domestic energy infrastructure to create weapons in the future.

Your objections have no basis in reality.

John_C_87 · June 2019

@Ampersand ;

The state of the Constitutional Union:

The real issue is Iran ties a creation, storage, and disposal of stock pile of enriched uranium to oil production creating a global economic issue with many countries placing them back in a high economic risk. Realistically an ideal retaliation is to move at a greater pace in the area's of space habitation, with allies and those who become attune to the necessity to insure a global constitutional common defense to maintain and preserve a tranquility. This backed with a firm military stance on the monitoring of any stock piles. The cold War ended because the idea of world expansion into space made the principle of Nuclear War it's self obsolete, the cost to remain ready for Nuclear retaliation on total destruction made then Idea of Chemical Warfare to interruptible and un cost effective.

linate · June 2019

@Ampersand

your objections to my objections are illogical.

you must not understand what a hypothetical is. it's where the facts presented do not reflect current reality, but could. there's no good reason to not allow inspectors, so if iran does that, we should use a limited strike. there's no good reason for iran to have 'too much' fuel, such as more than they would need for energy or than can be reasonably monitored, so if they do that, a limited strike is optimal.

linate · June 2019

@whiteflame

a zero percent chance of millions annihilated from iran nukes is better than, say, a twenty percent chance millions will die from iranian nukes.

given iran's history of violence and what they've said, such as their desire to annihilate israel, them having or likely having nukes is not smart or viable.

there's no point discussing further with you, because your position is irrational.

linate · June 2019

@whiteflame

a zero percent chance of millions annihilated from iran nukes is better than, say, a twenty percent chance millions will die from iranian nukes.

given iran's history of violence and what they've said, such as their desire to annihilate israel, them having or likely having nukes is not smart or viable.

there's no point discussing further with you, because your position is irrational.

linate · June 2019

@whiteflame

a zero percent chance of millions annihilated from iran nukes is better than, say, a twenty percent chance millions will die from iranian nukes.

given iran's history of violence and what they've said, such as their desire to annihilate israel, them having or likely having nukes is not smart or viable.

there's no point discussing further with you, because your position is irrational.

linate · June 2019

@whiteflame

a zero percent chance of millions annihilated from iran nukes is better than, say, a twenty percent chance millions will die from iranian nukes.

given iran's history of violence and what they've said, such as their desire to annihilate israel, them having or likely having nukes is not smart or viable.

there's no point discussing further with you, because your position is irrational.

linate · June 2019

@whiteflame

a zero percent chance of millions annihilated from iran nukes is better than, say, a twenty percent chance millions will die from iranian nukes.

given iran's history of violence and what they've said, such as their desire to annihilate israel, them having or likely having nukes is not smart or viable.

there's no point discussing further with you, because your position is irrational.

Plaffelvohfen · June 2019

@linate

...given iran history of violence...

This has no basis whatsoever in reality... Iran has not launched an aggressive war in modern history (unlike the US or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of “no first strike.” This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders. There’s no history to show that Iran are aggressive people. When’s the last time they invaded a country? Over 150 years ago...

The US are demonstrably a lot more violent, domestically and abroad...

whiteflame · June 2019

@linate

That's not a hypothetical. That's an assertion of absolute solvency. Care to support the claim that you can absolutely stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons simply by bombing the country into submission? Beyond that, where are you getting your 20% statistic? I know it's meant to be a vague approximation, but it has to come from somewhere. You're not just giving me a random number because it sounds vaguely accurate, right?

You've provided absolutely no reason to believe that Iran would, if it had access to nuclear weapons, use them. That's a big problem for your argument because, from the beginning, you've simply assumed that they would deploy these weapons in some way, arguing that they might use them directly or give them to one of the terrorist organizations that they work with. You haven't responded to my arguments on this issue. Nuclear weapons are extremely expensive to produce, and Iran knows it can only make a finite number given the amount of nuclear materials to which it has access. Using them or giving them to a rogue terrorist organization not only has a great potential for sacrificing that massive cost, but also removes the deterrent effect that having those nuclear weapons handy exercises. Mutually assured destruction is a pretty strong deterrent. It doesn't matter that Iran is violent and wants to end Israel because:

a) they have had more than ample opportunities to do harm to Israel in the past and have backtracked because they recognized that Israel would do them greater harm in return, indicating that Iran's government behaves rationally and therefore recognizes the threat of reprisal,
b) launching a nuclear weapon puts them in the cross-hairs of literally every nation in the region and many larger nations abroad, regardless of their target, though targeting Israel makes them far more vulnerable to reprisal from western nations, and
c) they are extremely unlikely to nuke a nation that has access to nuclear weapons and is watching your moves carefully (with a strong missile defense system), as Israel is and has been doing.

So, you say my position is irrational, yet you ignore literally every challenge I've given to your position and fail to even respond to the actual points I'm giving you. I've argued that cooling tensions with Iran would solve better because a nuclear Iran is, essentially, inevitable. Preventing them from gaining access to the technology is no longer an option, and the available nuclear material will eventually be processed to a point that it can be used in a weapon. We cannot guarantee that any bombing efforts will be 100% effective, yet that's what you need to see solvency on your end. Simply delaying their access to this material is not enough, especially as you're massively antagonizing them in the process.

And, might I add, you're by necessity causing a great deal of deaths in Iran. Your plan comes with an automatic and certain death toll, from people working in these facilities, those surrounding them (many of whom could be civilians), and anyone affected by collateral damage resulting from blowing up nuclear facilities (which could be at a much wider range). That's a guarantee of life loss on a large scale, all for the sake of some extremely low probability that we might be able to stop them from pursuing nuclear weapons in the short term. I'll emphasize those last four words: in the short term. Without any effort to occupy the country, Iran can and will rebuild facilities capable of doing this, some of which may be invisible to us (whether they're underground, disguised as another building, or anything else). There is no way you can guarantee that Iran will forever be put off nuclear tech, regardless of how absolutely perfect the US would have to be to completely stop their current efforts.

Who's irrational now?

Ampersand · June 2019

linate said:

@whiteflame

a zero percent chance of millions annihilated from iran nukes is better than, say, a twenty percent chance millions will die from iranian nukes.

given iran's history of violence and what they've said, such as their desire to annihilate israel, them having or likely having nukes is not smart or viable.

there's no point discussing further with you, because your position is irrational.

You have stated "the red line needs to be whether or not inspectors are let in."

They are letting inspectors in. They have been letting inspectors in for decades.Tthe International Atomic Energy Agency has cameras even set up directly looking at their enrichment facilities.

Throughout this thread you have been acting as if Iran in intransigent and unwilling to co-operate - secretly working towards making nuclear weapons. They aren't on either count. Ergo by your won standards the answer to this thread is no, the USA shouldn't bomb Iran and you should stop implying that Iran is causing issues on these points.

TKDB · June 2019

Trump says he doesn't want war with Iran, but there will be 'obliteration' if it comes

The president spoke in an exclusive interview with NBC's Chuck Todd for "Meet the Press."

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Trump trial set to continue with second day of jury selection in New York

In this Debate

if iran enriches too much nuclear fuel, america should bomb them
in Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

"if iran enriches too much nuclear fuel, america should bomb them"

"Situation Room briefing on Iran crisis concludes, as McConnell says 'measured' response is coming"

Trump says he doesn't want war with Iran, but there will be 'obliteration' if it comes

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Trump trial set to continue with second day of jury selection in New York

In this Debate

if iran enriches too much nuclear fuel, america should bomb themin Politics

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

"if iran enriches too much nuclear fuel, america should bomb them"

"Situation Room briefing on Iran crisis concludes, as McConnell says 'measured' response is coming"

Trump says he doesn't want war with Iran, but there will be 'obliteration' if it comes

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

if iran enriches too much nuclear fuel, america should bomb them
in Politics