How should a Nuclear Armed Iran be dealt with??

[Wisc Badger]

It is only a matter of time before Iran finishes it's nuclear arms program and has nuclear weapons. What then?

If what I have read is correct Iran will have the following capabilities:

A: Nuclear weapons of unknown yield and number of warheads.

B: The ability to hit Israel and most of the middle east and parts of Europe with these weapons via mussels.

C: Continued research/development of the capability of hitting the United States with nuclear weapons.

Now I think that we have force Iran to a degree into wanting thees weapons. We will live to regret it.

It never the less leaves the fact that a nuclear armed Iran is a development that calls for what actions if any from the United States? Europe?

Questions to consider:

1: How belligerent will a nuclear armed Iran become? They have a stated policy of wanting to destroy Israel, being armed with nukes will they try?

2: With regards to question 1, if Israel feels threatened they have had a tendency in the past to act first and let the chips fall where they may. What is the ramifications of a Israeli first strike (using nuke bunker buster munitions since that is what it would take to be effective) on Iran's nuclear weapons program? IMHO we are talking flat out war in the middle east. Iran will fight back.

3: Will there be a middle east version of the cold war with Israel and Europe and the United States all using a updated concept of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction)? Considering Islamic ideology would MAD work?

4: A land invasion of Iran seems to be out of the question since neither of the most likely invaders (United States or Israel) have the military manpower or other where with all to execute such an undertaking.

I ask again what should be done with a nuclear armed Iran.

BTW: I in know way trust shrub etal to handle this one well, they are already ramping up the war talk, we do not have the capability to back up their BS so bad things are most likely (unfortunately) going to happen. But could/can they be avoided?
:think:

[StephanieMarie]

1. My question is this

What has Iran EVER done to us? When has Iran EVER even threatened us?

[eg101]

2. why don't you quit ingesting mercantilist propaganda and go back to bed?

Stop worrying about Iran. They are trying to make you worry about Iran. Don't you see that? Quit reading and listening to their propaganda!

[Turbineguy]

3. Well, first you start

a propaganda blitz (so to speak) to convince people Iran has Nuclear weapons.

Then, when enough people believe it you bomb all the evidence (or the lack of it) so it can never be proved that they did not have the weapons.

That was the mistake they made in Iraq.

[Ganja Ninja]

4. How should we deal with Iran?

Try honesty, respect and fairness. Who appointed us, the only nation that has ever used a nuclear weapon in war, to be the arbiter of who should have nuclear weapons and who shouldn't?

[illflem]

5. Deal with Iran the same way we deal with Pakistan and India

Any country who uses nukes knows it will be the end for them, their only value is in deterrence. I can't blame any Muslim country wanting to protect itself from the bush cartel.

[Wisc Badger]

8. No argument with this statement.

"I can't blame any Muslim country wanting to protect itself from the bush cartel."

I am just afraid that giving prevailing Islamic attitudes and ideology they may be more willing to use them.

I also think Israel is a wild card in this deck.

[progressiveBadger]

6. Lets look at this from the perspective of Iran

The United States has the following capabilities:
A. A massive arsenal of nuclear weapons.
B. Cabability to hit any area of the globe.
C. A precedent in the use of these nuclear weapons during WWII.

Just one question to consider:
1. How belligerant has the US become? They have stated a policy of wanting to destroy the middle east.

We can't even begin to deal with Iran while US policy is one of offensive relations and "all for me, none for you".

[Wisc Badger]

10. Again no argument with your post ProgressiveBadger

That is why I started this post in part, Bushes speech yesterday and reports in the news today scare me and lead me to believe that conflict is coming. And I don't think this nation should be going down this road.

[progressiveBadger]

12. I know

I agree. I wasn't trying to contractict you, just trying to help answer your questions by looking at it from an outsider's perspective. The media never seems to do this, or bring up the fact that we have a hard time in this country putting ourselves into other peoples shoes.

[asjr]

7. North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel already have the weapons.

Iran does not as yet. Do we go into Iran because our leader says it has the capability? De ja Vu? Why not invade N. Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel because they already have the weapons? We have been fed so much propaganda no one knows what is true and what is not. I, for one, do not believe a word that comes from this administration. I am really tired of the word terrorism. We have it right here in the U.S. In Washington. Hate groups abound here.

[htuttle]

9. Well, how should a nuclear armed Pakistan be dealt with?

If you think that Pakistan is any less 'dangerous' by your measures than Iran, you've been fooled. Look up the Pakistani I.S.I.'s ONGOING involvement with both the Taliban and al Queda. Look up the activities of Mr. A.Q. Khan, and think about it again.

Arguably, while Iran may be more of an overt threat to Israel (otherwise known as 'The Region' in bushspeak), Pakistan is a far greater threat to the United States itself.

So MY question is: Why should a nuclear armed Iran be treated any differently than a nuclear armed Pakistan?

If we can live with a nuclear armed Pakistan, then we should be able to live with a nuclear armed Iran.

[yinkaafrica]

13. A nuclear Iran could deter US conquest in the area and save lives

I am 100% for it.

[moggie]

11. How about leaving them alone?

Or should we "deal with" a nuclear armed Israel, too? Why the double standards?

Oh, and I think you should stop worrying about armed mussels. I've seen mussels, and they're tiny and very slow. Any nation which attempts aggression using bivalves isn't going to get far.

[Wisc Badger]

14. First off Moggie sorry about the typo

as for the double standard you have a partial point. Israel has not however been considered a enemy to the United States by either party.

Iran on the other hand has (and yes I know we have given them historical reasons for not likeing us).

[illflem]

15. Just because they don't like us doesn't mean they are an enemy

[eg101]

16. LOL! This is GREAT! Wisc Badger sure got a earful here!

Can you imagine what kind of responses this badger would have gotten if hhe/she had asked this same question at a meeting of journalists?

The more people go online, and seek out interaction online, the better this country will become. Because like ours are not getting disseminated widely. The internet is the only way to get people like this badger to hear some common sense answers.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Question:

Who will assure Iran that she will be safe from the Bushies (and/or Israel) if she disarms?

If you can answer that question, you will be going a long ways toward answering the overall question of how to deal with Iran.

Even an nuclear armed Iran does not appear to have the capability of launching an attack on the US. She would, it appears, have the capability of launching an attack on Israel. Would she do such a thing? It's hard to tell, but logic would rule it out. A nuclear strike would kill as many Palestinians (good guys as far as Iran is concerned) as Israelis. Nevertheless, if a whack-job should take charge of the Iranian government -- not entirely out of the question -- bets are off.

A land invasion of Iran would be difficult even under ideal circumstances. With 150,000 troops tied up on occupation duty in Iraq, one should ask with whose army are the Bushies going to invade? On the other hand, as The Magistrate pointed out a few weeks ago, the "its-just-too-stupid-to-try" test doesn't work with the Bushies; nothing is too stupid for them to try.

Clearly, the Bushies are part of the problem. They aren't going to be a positive part of the solution.

[Wisc Badger]

18. Could not agree with your post more Jack Rabbit

We should announce that we have no designs on Iran or desire to alter their choice of governance (though it is hardly free).

It is the Islamic ideology that worries me. How much of this Islamic BS are they willing to export. They strike me as almost in the same category as Osama.

I don't believe Osama would like us except as subservient, are the Iranian Mullahs the same way.

In other words with more enlightened leadership on our part would they make nice with us, or still consider us the hated infidel (and for this argument I am pre-supposing that we honestly intend to deal in a forthright and peaceful manner with them, something I know that the Bush people will not do) and desire our total or partial destruction/humiliation.:hi: :dem:

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Response

I really don't care what the Iranian mullahs say. I am more concerned when idiots like Bush do things that lend what they say credibility. If that were not the case, Islamic ideology would fall on deaf ears.

The Iranians mullahs have done some pretty outrageous things such as issuing a fatwa against a novelist; and I am still patiently waiting for them to apologize for the embassy seizure in 1979. Still, they occasionally display a streak of good sense and I wouldn't put them in the same category as Osama.