How far should we go to stop Iran from getting Nukes

It depends on the conditions. The farthest I say we go are air strikes, with limited special forces operations possibly as well.

Full scale invasion? Not unless Iran provokes it by attacking an ally or the U.S.

 

That would be my thought, but not by this President. I don't want George W. Bush involved in starting another conflict. He's proven his incompetence. The only exception, in my mind, would be a response to an attack on us, or an ally. The great pity of Iraq, in my opinion, is that it ever happened. Without Iraq, we would have held a hammer of unknown, but highly feared force over states like Iran, and I think they would have been far more likely to restrain themselves in developing atomics, and acting through surrogates, like we've seen in Lebanon against Israel, and Iraq against us. The overwhelming success of Afghanistan had everyone's attention on our power. Iraq has shown that we have weaknesses. An overstretched military, without enough manpower (which Bush ignored his entire time in office, until now), and terrible political leadership at the top, which ignored the advice of our military, until they had puppets who would "agree" with whatever strategy hung around their necks by Bush, Rumsfeld and company.



D&D. It's Cold and Getting Colder.

 

I agree. I was speaking in broader conceptual terms. Bush should not be allowed to even think of designing or initiating any military action whatsoever. He has proven he is incapable.

Any planning done should be kept as far away from that man as possible.

 

I voted invasion, assuming that it is further than any of the other choices, and thus leaves all of the other options on the table as well. Perhaps a better choice would have been, whatever it takes.

 

We only need to destroy their nuclear facilities right? So air strike is enough.

Or, let's send Jack Bauer.

 

a naval blockade should be the limit.

air strikes if need be, to destroy the facilities.

invasion should be avoided, unless they nuke somebody... but if they nuke somebody then i guess the blockade, and air strikes probably didn't work.

 

I am interested in what the differences between strong economic sanctions and very provocative economic sanctions are.

Also, are air strikes or a blockade considered more severe? A blockade doesn't actually blow the crap out of anything, but I think it is more likely to result in a full blown naval conflict which would lead to a full blown war. Also, would we be wanting to blockade stuff from comming out of Iran or into Iran?

Now that I think about it, the option of a blockade seems about as relevant as an option for building trebuchets and laying siege to Tehran. I'm not sure it is particularly useful or effective in the modern world?

Without trying to advocate anything in any direction, I think the president seems to be trying to indicate that this has already happened by Iranian personell working actively in the insurgency. I don't think this is what you intended by your comments.

So, what constitutes the smallest level of 'attack' that would trigger your response? One-time air raids on Israeli 'nuclear targets' like some advocate against Iran? Air raids on Iraq? Vietnam-esque special forces 'advisors' aiding the Iraqi insurgency? Infantry? Tanks? Invasion and occupation?

 

You would know it if it happened, because the "incident" would have to be one hell of a noticable event for me to even consider George W. Bush being involved in any scenario.



D&D. Getting Colder.

 

both and neither.

Iran doesn't have any great export except oil. Iran is also a net gasoline importer.

the blockade would stop the movement and transport abilities, (they would still have their rail lines)... hopefully causing an uprising in the streets and a toppling of the government. but it could also generate support of the government, so.......

 

Invasion is NOT an option because it's NOT winnable.

 

That depends on the goal. Invasion with the intention of destroying their nuclear facilities, possibly including capturing/killing their government leaders would certainly be acheivable, kind of like what happened with the initial stages of the war in Iraq leading to the capture of Baghdad and the toppling of the regime. Even occupying the counrty could be done, thought the outcome of doing so might not be desireable, especailly depending on how it is handled (see Iraq).

 

Iran is roughly twice the size of Iraq, doesn't have the same exploitable ethnic divisions, and has 68 million people (Iraq has 27mm). The chance of occupying it successfully is nil. The US Army is completely locked down either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or recuperating from both. It took several months to find Hussein and fully inspect the supposed nuclear facilities which didn't exist. We don't even know where the Iranian ones are, much less what is in them (IIRC a lot are supposedly hidden in urban areas). The fact that the US could beat the Iranian army in a tank battle is pretty much irrelevant because the Iranian army wouldn't fight a tank battle, they would do the same thing that is happening in Iraq - but much more effectively due to more people, $$, and less infighting.

There is almost no chance that either of the two scenarios you described could be accomplished in the terms you describe without massive complications.

 

if it is a multinational force, like desert storm, with 500,000+ boots, and occupation is possible.

 

Suffice it to say, that I disagree.

 

Nice factual support. Is it that hard to admit that you're wrong? These are all simple facts: Iran is MUCH bigger than Iraq, geographically and population wise, has a lot more $$$, does nt have a large religious minority that hates the government, the US has worse intelligence, and that the US army doesn't have anywhere near the capability to invade and occupy it at the present time. IF you have anything to refute this, post it.

First off, there is virtually no chance of that happening so you might as well throw in magical space aliens with mind control powers.

Second, Desert Storm didn't occupy anything - it kicked a conventional army out of a tiny postage stamp sized country - and THAT took 500,000 people. Occupying all of Iran? Sorry but that's simply not possible (or desirable).

 

Are you planning on putting off law school so you can lend a hand?

 

iraq's army at the time was incredibly depleted given the war with iran. this isn't the case with iran.

secondly the US army is suffering given the war with iraq currently.

there's also the fact that no one in the world except poland or micronesia would be in support of an invasion. even israel would only provide air cover or cover operations. they wouldn't want to get involve in a land invasion with their troops on the ground.

but you can be like stupidmoniker and just ignore reality either due to ignorance or idiocy.