Great, just what we need more drum beats for war with Iran. Have we not learned that war should be the very last option when ALL ELSE has failed.

gene,

Perhaps you should go over to the website and see what is written - it is a discussion of the issue.

A conventional war with Iran would be too hard, take too long, and cost too much.

Thats why I advocate the quick and targeted use of atomic weapons. Unless liberals, I'm wrong about my assumptions above?

Thats why I advocate the quick and targeted use of atomic weapons.

Posted by: Kahn at October 13, 2007 01:23 PM

OK, I get it. The use of American atomic weapons on a foreign nation is a good thing. U.S. right, everyone else, wrong. U.S. good, everyone else, bad.

CO - unless I was wrong about it being too hard. Was I?

Kahn: CO - unless I was wrong about it being too hard. Was I?

What makes you think "a quick and targeted use of atomic weapons" would be tidy? I'm sure it would be quick, but I doubt it would be tidy. Who gets to clean up the mess? For that matter, how do you envision the mess, exactly -- both physical and political?

How do you envision the mess of NOT stopping Iran?

No nation, not one has admitted that they were developing nuclear weapons before actually having them. Remember that. Iran is killing Americans NOW. Think about that. They say they will destroy Israel. And tehy are postioning to take over Southern Iraq and possibly move on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (as well as Bahreain and the rest).

So - what is YOUR plan? They need to be stopped. Liberals here say it will be too expensive, take to long, and be to hard. A very simialr dillema as that faced by Trumman. So? I offer a solution. You offer nothing but defeat (Iran already considers itself at war with us).

As to physical clean-up - well if they care the Russians and Europeans can clean up. As to political fall out. What enemies are going to seriously mess with us while Tehran is still glowing in the distance?

You see, I know this position is extreme. But I'm not willing to accept defeat in the region and you liberals are against every reasonable alternative. The damn war would only take a half hour. It overcomes all your STATED objections. So, whats YOUR alternative? Selected conventional air strikes? Cruise missiles? Ground attack? I thought you were against all THOSE choices also?

Lots of spelling mistakes above - sorry. Damn IE. I usually use Firfox.

Kahn:- As to physical clean-up - well if they care the Russians and Europeans can clean up.

The U.S. nukes Iran and the Russians and Europeans get clean-up duty. Yeah, they will jump at that job.

Kahn:-You see, I know this position is extreme.

Really???

Go you Kahn, you manly man. Hoo Rahh.

Kill em' all. Let God sort them out.

First paragraph of the article says:-

On June 24, 2005, after nearly ten years of supporting liberal reform, the people of Iran surprised the world by electing the conservative mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as their new president.

Holy cow, the guy is a conservative. Hilarious!!!

Canadian,

RE: "The U.S. nukes Iran and the Russians and Europeans get clean-up duty. Yeah, they will jump at that job."

If Iran nukes Israel, one of it's neighbors, or one of our allies, who gets clean-up duty then? In that case, do you really think Iran's is the only one who will be firing a few nukes? There will be a far bigger clean-up then than there would be if we stop Iran now.

Who says we, or Israel, are going to use nukes to prevent the use of nukes? If reports are correct, the United States has bunker-buster type bombs capable of knocking out any underground facility that Iran has. Yes, there might be some radioactive leakage, but no where near what would happen with an exchange of nuclear bombs and missiles!

And why do the Europeans and Russians have to clean-up. Aren't there others around who need some work, or perhaps we just leave it as a reminder! What about Canada? I see "you" didn't volunteer for any help or support!!!

Oh, I almost forgot, if Iran nukes the United States, will Canadians rush in and help with the clean-up? Probably not! Who knows, perhaps Canada will be cleaning up its own radioactive fall-out if a strike is near Canada and/or the winds are blowing in the "right" direction. As would be the case with an attack on Israel, Iran will take a nuclear hit in return, only much BIGGER! It will probably be better just to fence the area off and wait 10,000 or so years for natural radioactive decay, the sands of time, and the sands of the desert to take care of the "mess" and clean-up!

It's amazing how self-righteous, holier-than-though, and judgmental you Canadians, Europeans, Russians, and other nations are when it's only the United States and Israel who would likely be the targets of a nuclear attack or "just another conventional" terrorist attack! No reason to get all excited if it's only the good ol' United States who's in the crosshairs!

AAR

AgentFear,

When it comes to protecting the United States, we need manly men to do the job -- not a bunch of girly guys, or worse yet, Looney Liberals!

AAR

Kahn, if we wanted to kill tons of Iran's government and destroy their military, it would be no problem at all for the US military. It's the whole governing them afterwards thing we have trouble with. The only reason to nuke Iran would be for maximum civilian deaths, which I'm sure some people would like just fine.

Robert - the idea behind such a radical approach (nuking Iran) would be to reduce the number of American casualties that an all out invasion would cause. Same idea that had Truman nuking Japan.

A series of bunker busters might work, if we know for sure where the nukes are.

And for sure, a real threat or attack by Iran on Isreal will light up the whole area. One must always remember - Isreal does have nukes. And Isreal has a willingness to fight that so few liberals seem to have. But then they understand that their very survival depends on a willingness to fight.

Who cares about governing them? Draw all their forces into the field and nuke em. Nuke their atomic valley. Don't really need to go after the cites at all.

But I for one don't draw the distinction between the people of a nation and the government of a nation that some people do. You think all of Germany loved hitler? Or all of the USSR loved Stalin? They were both fierce enemys however. Nationalism is like that. Not that many liberals would understand.

If we need to defeat Iran, then we need to defeat Iran. NOT just its government. That is the lesson of Iraq. Point?

Nuclear weapons are not an option, but yes something has to be done to stop what they are doing. If you do not think they will use weapons of mass destruction, if they are able to obtain them, just look at their history. But I guess Syria, you know Iran's pawn, really wasnt putting a chemical warhead on that scud missil when a mistake wiped out all those tech's from N. Korea. I guess they just wanted to see if they could do it. They really were not going to use it on anyone...

Kahn, as a first disclaimer, let me say that I am predisposed to suspect the viability of simple answers to complex questions. I'm not an inside player, so I don't know all the details. But I think it's fair to say that the Iran issue is complex. Simple solutions might be appealing, but they aren't likely to be sustainable in the long run -- or even viable in the short run. Your solution addresses only the short run, and to an extreme degree. It requires the dual assumption that the Iranians will be mollified into complacence by our display of shock and awe and that the rest of the world won't be horrified and disgusted by the display. In a sense, the two are competing outcomes. In other words, in order to do the first we'd have to engage in a substantial nuclear assault. Otherwise, as you indicated, we will not have defeated the Iranian people. But if we do engage in a substantial nuclear assault, we won't have any allies left. It wouldn't be a question of them taking up arms. Rather, it would be an attempt to marginalize the US in any way they could.

Of course, this is all an academic exercise because... it ain't gonna happen. We aren't going to nuke Iran -- unless they nuke us first. And that's not going to happen, either. So let's get serious. The problem with a nuclear Iran is not that they are likely to attack us, it's that if Iran goes nuclear it will potentially destabilize the region. I can think of lots of ways that could play out. Because of which I find it rather difficult to believe that any player in the region wants to see that happen -- Russia and China included. I suspect that they appear more copescetic about the idea right now because they're more patient than we are, and better at brinksmanship politics. And besides that, they're more than willing to allow us the opportunity to do something really stupid, and then take advantage of it.

In the end I think that there is every reason to believe that Iran is quite vulnerable economically. And with proper economic leverage, they could be quite vulnerable politically as well. The latter is less obvious than the former. But the former is likely to be good enough. I think we have to start to realize that no solution is perfect. We cannot kill all the bad guys because the more concerted an effort we make in that regard, the more we will generate. And besides, "bad guy" is a relative term. Likewise, we cannot expect any nation to embrace western style democracy overnight. If that was the case then Central and South America would be beacons of democracy by now. Obviously they aren't. At any given time some countries down there blink on at the same time others are blinking off. And I suspect the reason is that we either don't have a very good idea about what it truly takes for democracy to sink in, or are disinclined to care -- perhaps because it would be bad for business.

Rico - read your own post. How many millions of Americans are you willing sacrifice? Nukes won't mollify the Iranians, it will kill them. Dust has no opinion.

Why shoulod nuclear weapons not be an option against a country you yourself will use them against use?

Which cities are you willing to lose? Attacks on either coast would throw the balance of power to the Republicans.