GLASS PARKING LOT---AMIRITE--STOP--.

They'll probably use it on their own people and blame it on israel

Some late night reading on the 'military option'.

To sum up, if you're one of those TL;DR types:

Military option means either air strikes or an invasion.

If you go for air/conventional missile strikes:
1. At max, destroying Iran's nuclear facilities will only set them back a limited amount of time. 2 years, tops. They have the know-how to make centrifuges. They've done the hard part. Getting back to production speed is not difficult.
2. You'll need multiple sorties. You'll need strikes to take out air defenses. You'll need missions to pick up downed pilots (if it comes to that).

If you go for an invasion:
1. Iran is a lot bigger than Iraq. It also has double the number of people. You will need more troops than the Iraq invasion.
2. Who's going to foot the bill?

Most critically, any military action would lead to the total discrediting of liberals/reformists in Iran and a "closing ranks" political tendency.

So yeah, we're not going to hit Iran. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either an idiot or advocating for a largely futile and counterproductive gesture. Ultimately, the key is making them realize that having nukes is simply not worth it. At this point, it's unlikely for the West to ever get them to totally give up their enrichment program. At best, convincing them to adopt an ambiguous posture like the Japanese (a few months to build a bomb) might be achievable.

Riche: Republicans tend to LOVE futile and counterproductive gestures, especially when they involve blowing up brown people.

Heh, no doubt. But trust me, if the war drums start crescendoing, there will be democrats piling on board as well, just like last time.

I don't want any countries to have nuclear warheads...
But if the US (the only country to have actually used nukes in warfare, killing thousands of civilians...innocent people) has them, why not let Iran have them?

The US has this weird double standard when it comes to nukes or weapons of mass destruction. It's OK for THEM to have it but if another country wants it, they pitch a fit.

I'm for an all or nothing approach. Let Iran have them. Let North Korea have them. Whomever it is that the US doesn't like. Unless the US is willing to give up their nukes, they cannot decide who gets to have them and who doesn't.

After all, the US has more than any other country. Also, it seems that the US doesn't invade countries with nukes. Which is why, for all of its saber-rattling during the GWB era, the "Axis of Evil" were three countries without nukes.

We invaded Iraq. No wonder North Korea and Iran then were looking to develop nukes. They didn't want to be next.

Let me be clear: I do not want ANYONE to have nukes. I do not want any country to get hit with a nuclear bomb. But as long as the US has them, they do not deserve to take part in any decision involving who gets to have them.

shivashakti: I don't want any countries to have nuclear warheads...
But if the US (the only country to have actually used nukes in warfare, killing thousands of civilians...innocent people) has them, why not let Iran have them?

The US has this weird double standard when it comes to nukes or weapons of mass destruction. It's OK for THEM to have it but if another country wants it, they pitch a fit.

I'm for an all or nothing approach. Let Iran have them. Let North Korea have them. Whomever it is that the US doesn't like. Unless the US is willing to give up their nukes, they cannot decide who gets to have them and who doesn't.

After all, the US has more than any other country. Also, it seems that the US doesn't invade countries with nukes. Which is why, for all of its saber-rattling during the GWB era, the "Axis of Evil" were three countries without nukes.

We invaded Iraq. No wonder North Korea and Iran then were looking to develop nukes. They didn't want to be next.

Let me be clear: I do not want ANYONE to have nukes. I do not want any country to get hit with a nuclear bomb. But as long as the US has them, they do not deserve to take part in any decision involving who gets to have them.

Yes yes, the US is hypocritical on this issue. But so what? Hypocrisy is not a good enough reason to give nukes to North farking Korea.

When it comes to nuclear proliferation, armchair arguments like "what right does the US have to decide!?" are a waste of time.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Well thank G-d, the Israelis are now finally vindicated for bulldozing Palestinian villages to make way for Jewish mini-malls.

"Reportedly shows Tehran making computer models of armed missiles"

So they've gone from Photoshop to 3ds Max. Send some modeling software to Israel.

UN: WE MUST START WORLD WAR THREE, SO THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX CAN MAKE BILLIONS MORE OFF OF DEAD PEOPLE!!!

/So tired of it.

I like how this kind of information is not classified, while near earth objects and any information about meteorites and comets is classified.

Before they just had suspicions. Now they have a couple unnamed sources. That's enough to nuke them.

violentsalvation: Riche: Considering all the shiat the U.S. and Israel has pulled over the years, I think Iran would be crazy to NOT try to acquire nukes and the missiles to deliver them.

Nukes and a credible second strike delivery system is the ONLY way Iran can get respect as a sovereign state.

Iran has been a sovereign state as they are now since 1979. If you are OK with allowing nuclear weapons to be held by holocaust deniers and what all the other Islamic nations in the region consider to be a threat, just say it.

What they do is their own business - how their neighbours adress it is their business.

The USA, in their self-appointed position of world policeman, have made such a farking poor job of everything else they have become embroiled in over the last 50 years that you would think that they would like to distance themselves from potential conflict just onc......... hey guys - FREE OIL!!!

Sorry, what was I thinking?

Asa Phelps: I think this is a perfect excuse to start another foreign war that we can't pay for and from which nobody will ever benefit.

Well, there are a few million Israelis who thing not being slaughtered in a genocide is a benefit.

you can use google to find articles about Iran being months or a couple years away from the bomb going back as far as the early 90s. But they are finally gonna get it this time! yep not fear mongering at all...

SoCalSurfer: They'll probably use it on their own people and blame it on israel

Now that is thinking out of the box.

So farking what?

Pakistan has nukes, and they are a lot less stable than Iran is. And frankly, since Iran is a soveriegn nation who has never made any official agreementes with anyone not to develop nuclear weapons, I am surprised at the restraint on their part for waiting this long to do so. Good for them, as far as I am concerned.

Fact is, that nukes are obsolete as weapons. Great to saber-rattle with, but not much more. The real threat globally is bio-weapons, because they are easy, cheap, virtually indefensible, and without a sophisticated lab they are untraceable as well. "What? 95% of everyone in the middle east just died of a weird avian flu-strain? How odd. Oh well, guess we should volunteer to go take care of all the environmental (oil) concerns over there. You know, because we care about the planet."

theguyyousaw: I like how this kind of information is not classified, while near earth objects and any information about meteorites and comets is classified.

What? Is someone afraid that a rogue state will start developing their own meteorites or comets?

shivashakti: I don't want any countries to have nuclear warheads...
But if the US (the only country to have actually used nukes in warfare, killing thousands of civilians...innocent people) has them, why not let Iran have them?

The US has this weird double standard when it comes to nukes or weapons of mass destruction. It's OK for THEM to have it but if another country wants it, they pitch a fit.

I'm for an all or nothing approach. Let Iran have them. Let North Korea have them. Whomever it is that the US doesn't like. Unless the US is willing to give up their nukes, they cannot decide who gets to have them and who doesn't.

After all, the US has more than any other country. Also, it seems that the US doesn't invade countries with nukes. Which is why, for all of its saber-rattling during the GWB era, the "Axis of Evil" were three countries without nukes.

We invaded Iraq. No wonder North Korea and Iran then were looking to develop nukes. They didn't want to be next.

Let me be clear: I do not want ANYONE to have nukes. I do not want any country to get hit with a nuclear bomb. But as long as the US has them, they do not deserve to take part in any decision involving who gets to have them.

I see the benefits of a libtard education was not wasted on you. When we dropped the bomb on Japan, it was really the most humane choice, because it would have cost untold millions of Japanese and American lives. Also, the cities chosen (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were military industrial cities with many military bases and weapons factories. If we had dropped one on Tokyo, then yes, we would have been evil.

And it is far from a double standard. Who would you rather have with a gun (not having one is not a choice... genie is out of the bottle), a stable hardworking person, or a crazy zealot? Because letting Iran have a nuke means they WILL use it. its not about MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) anymore. Same thing with North Korea. Do you not think that someone as crazy and power mad as Kim Jong Il will not hesitate to use it on the south? Or that they both will not sell them to terrorists? We have a hard enough time trying to keep Pakistan from doing that, and they are positively the voice of reason compared to Iran (and they were harboring OBL, for goodness sake).

From Reuters (new window)

IS IRAN DEVELOPING A NUCLEAR-CAPABLE MISSILE?

Britain said earlier this year Iran had carried out covert tests of a missile that could carry a nuclear warhead. Tehran swiftly denied the allegation, saying its missiles cannot carry nuclear payloads.

But the IAEA in May expressed concern about alleged "missile re-entry vehicle redesign activities for a new payload assessed as being nuclear in nature."

Proliferation expert Mark Fitzpatrick said Iran has a fleet of ballistic missiles under development, the most capable of which has a reach of at least 2,200 km (1,375 miles), potentially far enough to hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East.

Iran has said it conducted a launch in February 2011 that flew into the Indian Ocean. "Iran's ability to monitor the test flight in the ocean is a new capability," said Fitzpatrick, a director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Arms Control Association said Iran was not likely to have a long-range ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States until at least the end of the decade.

"Fitting a nuclear weapon on a ballistic missile is a difficult task that took established nuclear powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union many years to develop," it said in a paper on Iran's nuclear program.

Headso: you can use google to find articles about Iran being months or a couple years away from the bomb going back as far as the early 90s. But they are finally gonna get it this time! yep not fear mongering at all...

came to say pretty much this. Also I hope they find ANY evidence rather than the Iraq model of finding NO evidence then saying that is proof of a need to attack...

Hopefully Israel and them will toss their nukes at each other sand save the rest of the world the headache of dealing with that shiatty region of the world.

Wolftech: When we dropped the bomb on Japan, it was really the most humane choice, because it would have cost untold millions of Japanese and American lives.

Oh it's this canard again.

Bio-nic: luckyeddie: violentsalvation: Riche: Considering all the shiat the U.S. and Israel has pulled over the years, I think Iran would be crazy to NOT try to acquire nukes and the missiles to deliver them.

Nukes and a credible second strike delivery system is the ONLY way Iran can get respect as a sovereign state.

Iran has been a sovereign state as they are now since 1979. If you are OK with allowing nuclear weapons to be held by holocaust deniers and what all the other Islamic nations in the region consider to be a threat, just say it.

What they do is their own business - how their neighbours adress it is their business.

The USA, in their self-appointed position of world policeman, have made such a farking poor job of everything else they have become embroiled in over the last 50 years that you would think that they would like to distance themselves from potential conflict just onc......... hey guys - FREE OIL!!!

Sorry, what was I thinking?

It's not really self appointed -- the UN will come to the US first for any type of action that may require military intervention? Why? Because the US is on the security council for the UN, and if the US won't put a stamp on it, either through money or personnel, it's not going to happen.

You wanna eliminate us from that position? Withdraw US funding for the UN and watch the organization fall apart.

In other words, what the USA wants, the USA gets. Self-appointed policeman - self-appointed playground bully wanting to steal the UN's dinner money - same difference.

Balchinian: So farking what?

Pakistan has nukes, and they are a lot less stable than Iran is. And frankly, since Iran is a soveriegn nation who has never made any official agreementes with anyone not to develop nuclear weapons, I am surprised at the restraint on their part for waiting this long to do so. Good for them, as far as I am concerned.

Fact is, that nukes are obsolete as weapons. Great to saber-rattle with, but not much more. The real threat globally is bio-weapons, because they are easy, cheap, virtually indefensible, and without a sophisticated lab they are untraceable as well. "What? 95% of everyone in the middle east just died of a weird avian flu-strain? How odd. Oh well, guess we should volunteer to go take care of all the environmental (oil) concerns over there. You know, because we care about the planet."

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (new window)

Wolftech: shivashakti: I don't want any countries to have nuclear warheads...
But if the US (the only country to have actually used nukes in warfare, killing thousands of civilians...innocent people) has them, why not let Iran have them?

The US has this weird double standard when it comes to nukes or weapons of mass destruction. It's OK for THEM to have it but if another country wants it, they pitch a fit.

I'm for an all or nothing approach. Let Iran have them. Let North Korea have them. Whomever it is that the US doesn't like. Unless the US is willing to give up their nukes, they cannot decide who gets to have them and who doesn't.

After all, the US has more than any other country. Also, it seems that the US doesn't invade countries with nukes. Which is why, for all of its saber-rattling during the GWB era, the "Axis of Evil" were three countries without nukes.

We invaded Iraq. No wonder North Korea and Iran then were looking to develop nukes. They didn't want to be next.

Let me be clear: I do not want ANYONE to have nukes. I do not want any country to get hit with a nuclear bomb. But as long as the US has them, they do not deserve to take part in any decision involving who gets to have them.

I see the benefits of a libtard education

Do you just enjoy pissing away any weight your post may have by resorting to childish partisan name calling a whopping 7 words into your first sentence?

Seth'n'Spectrum: So yeah, we're not going to hit Iran. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either an idiot or advocating for a largely futile and counterproductive gesture.

I've not seen any evidence in a while that indicates that "idiotic" or "advocating for a largely futile and counterproductive gesture" doesn't describe most politicians

Riche: Bio-nic: Riche: Considering all the shiat the U.S. and Israel has pulled over the years, I think Iran would be crazy to NOT try to acquire nukes and the missiles to deliver them.

Nukes and a credible second strike delivery system is the ONLY way Iran can get respect as a sovereign state.

If there weren't supporting terrorists and actively attempting to destroy other countries I'd agree.

The U.S. supports terrorists and has (probably still is) actively attempting to destroy other countries. So what's so different?

Seriously, we do have a better moral compass than Iran, but we're not all that much better-- especially when it comes to foreign policy.

That is messed up. You must watch too many movies.

DrippinBalls: "I can have it, YOU can't" hardly ever works, whether it's two 9yr olds in a playground dispute, or two nations in a military dispute.

When the "it" is a gun and one of those 9 year olds is known for throwing temper tantrums and randomly blaming the Jews for everything that's wrong with the world, its an argument that certainly works.
Hell, with guns among adults we see that argument working between citizens of equal age and standing when one of them just has a drug violation on their record. "I can have it, you can't" will hold up in any court in the land.

Granted, with international politics things are never that clear cut.

/Hopefully when they don't find the WMD's this time at least they'll remember to plant some.

Bio-nic: If one country is actively seeking weapons of mass destruction to eliminate another country then guess what - we should intercede to prevent that.

Except that that's an assumption, and not necessarily fact. It's just as likely they're doing it because Israel is nuclear, hostile to them, and next door.

shivashakti: I don't want any countries to have nuclear warheads...
But if the US (the only country to have actually used nukes in warfare, killing thousands of civilians...innocent people) has them, why not let Iran have them?

The US has this weird double standard when it comes to nukes or weapons of mass destruction. It's OK for THEM to have it but if another country wants it, they pitch a fit.

I'm for an all or nothing approach. Let Iran have them. Let North Korea have them. Whomever it is that the US doesn't like. Unless the US is willing to give up their nukes, they cannot decide who gets to have them and who doesn't.

After all, the US has more than any other country. Also, it seems that the US doesn't invade countries with nukes. Which is why, for all of its saber-rattling during the GWB era, the "Axis of Evil" were three countries without nukes.

We invaded Iraq. No wonder North Korea and Iran then were looking to develop nukes. They didn't want to be next.

Let me be clear: I do not want ANYONE to have nukes. I do not want any country to get hit with a nuclear bomb. But as long as the US has them, they do not deserve to take part in any decision involving who gets to have them.

Bolded part of your statement is factually untrue.

/It would be ideal if there were no nuclear weapons in the world, but the reality is they do exist. Keeping them out of the hands of reckless dictators is fine by me. Until we figure out how to put the lid back on Pandora's Box it seems like the best option available.

You shouldn't let paranoid schizophrenics own guns and you shouldn't let the nation-state equivalent of a paranoid shizophrenic own nuclear weapons. This has to be done, and I think it is a foregone conclusion that at the very least Israel and Great Britain will undertake this endeavor, even if the U.S. doesn't have the balls to. Problem with letting Israel do it as other Arab countries may want to get into the fight (on the other side) if it is them, where anybody else, they will stand by and let it happen as not even they want Iran to have nuclear capability.

I've thought that was one of our reasons for winding down in Iraq, so we would have the resources available to hit Iran. Perhaps the right wing propoganda has gotten to me, but I really do wonder if Obama has the stomach for it, so I am not sure we will get involved.