Should Iran Be Allowed To Have Nuclear Weapons?

[kyzr]

The President must not send in ground troops and hopefully his generals have advised him not to.

No need to send in ground troops when the blockade is devastating Iran's economy.

 

[BS Filter]

No need to send in ground troops when the blockade is devastating Iran's economy.

That's one reason. No need to put troops in combat when we can destroy their grid and bridges, which will pretty much be their end.

 

[toobfreak]

I’m starting to wonder if Iran even has an army but, if they do, where is it and can it actually be deployed? And, Can it be deployed without us seeing it and taking them out by air? I’m kind of thinking that if we went in with ground troops they would be shooting missiles at us because their army couldn’t get to us.

My understanding is Iran has a 2 million man army of IRGC loyalists. They know that if they lose, they are dead.

 

[HikerGuy83]

My understanding is Iran has a 2 million man army of IRGC loyalists. They know that if they lose, they are dead.

They are tribal in nature. If one of them were to soften, others might attack.

It's the kind of crack in the armor we need.

This keeps us out of the place of killing them. Let them feast on each other.

 

[kyzr]

My understanding is Iran has a 2 million man army of IRGC loyalists. They know that if they lose, they are dead.

Just looked it up.....lets say 60,000 IRGC and 920,000 regular army, not very formidable.

start with the IRGC, Iran's version of Nazi SS storm-troopers, or Putin's FSB:

Then we look at the regular army, the Artesh:

The IRGC got pounded by Epic Fury, lets say they have about half strength since they are drafting 12-year old kids now.

My understanding is that the Artesh was not targeted by Epic Fury, except once the IDF bombed them against Trump's order.

 

[kyzr]

They are tribal in nature. If one of them were to soften, others might attack.
It's the kind of crack in the armor we need.
This keeps us out of the place of killing them. Let them feast on each other.

Can the CIA get the Artesh generals to attack the IRGC and the crazy mullahs?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Can the CIA get the Artesh generals to attack the IRGC and the crazy mullahs?

They need fallback plans and security.

We've not always been the best.

But really....if you could arm enough people the IRGC would head for the hills.

 

[JoeB131]

Seems like some here are OK with Iran having nuclear weapons. So, I thought it would be interesting to see how many with a poll and how many are against. Pretty much every single country in the world (191 out of 195) has signed the nuclear weapons non proliferation treaty, including Iran.

Only one Country has ever used nuclear weapons on human beings.

Against a country that had already been defeated and was seeking surrender terms.

Iran having nukes is not ideal, and there was never any evidence that they were making nuclear weapons.

A country that never signed the NPT and has a long history of aggression against its neighbors is Israel, but you don't have a problem with THOSE religious fanatics having weapons.

Okay, let's get real here. In the modern Era, Nuclear Weapons are the ultimate "Don't mess with us" weapon.

to recap.
Saddam gave up his nukes, and we murdered him.
Gaddafi gave up his nukes, and we murdered him.
Khameini signed an agreement not to make nukes, and we murdered him.

Kim Jong-Il made him a nuke, and not the whole world kisses North Korea's backside.

Seems to me that Iran has a powerful incentive to get a nuke.

And if we aren't willing to draft millions of men to invade Iran, there's not much we can do about it. It's not like this is new, cutting edge technology. One corrupt Russian Colonel, and Iran is a nuclear power.

 

[toobfreak]

Just looked it up.....lets say 60,000 IRGC and 920,000 regular army, not very formidable.

The biggest problem I see stopping us from defeating their army is us. We lose one jet, one pilot and you could already hear the complaints--- people wanting to call for an end of the war and to pullout as not worth it because we actually lost a guy.

Meanwhile, the IRGC are prepared to fight to the last man.

It is hard to defeat an enemy when your opponent doesn't know the meaning of quit vs. your own country looking for the first excuse to quit.

Iran knows this and this is actually what helps spur them on. For 47 years, the West has given up first every time when it came down to brass tacks.

Now we are surprised that Iran isn't jumping at any first chance for an out of this war? Just earlier, I heard some say that Trump's 90 days are almost up.

The Iranians probably have those 90 days marked on a calendar.

 

[kyzr]

The biggest problem I see stopping us from defeating their army is us. We lose one jet, one pilot and you could already hear the complaints--- people wanting to call for an end of the war and to pullout as not worth it because we actually lost a guy.

As long as there are no US troops in the ground, and the Navy blockade is working, I believe the "people" will let the war play out, especially if we get Iran's enriched uranium. A very big win.

Meanwhile, the IRGC are prepared to fight to the last man.
It is hard to defeat an enemy when your opponent doesn't know the meaning of quit vs. your own country looking for the first excuse to quit.
Iran knows this and this is actually what helps spur them on. For 47 years, the West has given up first every time when it came down to brass tacks.

Iran knows when they lost. Papa Kohmeini ended the war with Saddam and famously said:

Now we are surprised that Iran isn't jumping at any first chance for an out of this war? Just earlier, I heard some say that Trump's 90 days are almost up. The Iranians probably have those 90 days marked on a calendar.

Is an ongoing naval blockade a "war"? I don't think so.
If the ceasefire holds its a matter of who can withstand the other's blockade longer?
Just because the 90-days are up doesn't mean the US leaves or quits, it just means no more money for the war, which we don't need for a naval blockade.

 

[JoeB131]

Another Bleach Drinker trying to put a positive spin on this.

As long as there are no US troops in the ground, and the Navy blockade is working, I believe the "people" will let the war play out, especially if we get Iran's enriched uranium. A very big win.

Except how would we know we got all of Iran's Uranium without invading? How do we know they just won't give us some of their low grade uranium while keeping the good stuff?

Iran knows when they lost. Papa Kohmeini ended the war with Saddam and famously said:

Except that war dragged on for 8 years, and at the end, Iran was sending young boys to the front. I don't think we can afford for this war to drag on for 8 years.

Is an ongoing naval blockade a "war"? I don't think so.
If the ceasefire holds its a matter of who can withstand the other's blockade longer?
Just because the 90-days are up doesn't mean the US leaves or quits, it just means no more money for the war, which we don't need for a naval blockade.

The problem is, Trump has pretty much exhausted our supplies of missile and Tomahawks, and all Iran needs to do to maintain the blockade is a few mines and drones.

 

[kyzr]

Another Bleach Drinker trying to put a positive spin on this.

Another low-IQ democrat trying to think critically.

Except how would we know we got all of Iran's Uranium without invading? How do we know they just won't give us some of their low grade uranium while keeping the good stuff?

The same way the JCPOA inspectors tried to manage Iran's enrichment program. My guess is that we would have joint teams at the enrichment sites seeing how much of the 460 kg of 60% enriched uranium could be recovered and removed. Troops are not trained for nuclear cleanup.

Except that war dragged on for 8 years, and at the end, Iran was sending young boys to the front. I don't think we can afford for this war to drag on for 8 years.

This war can't drag on for 8-weeks.
Iran would lose much of their oil well capacities, not to mention losing $500m a day of revenue.
My assumption is that the Iranian realists would give up the uranium and the bomb to keep the oil money flowing, while the IRGC and the crazy mullahs would never surrender to "Satan". Yet Kohmeini "drank from the poison chalice", so there is precedence for saving the country, not to mention their theocratic rule.

The problem is, Trump has pretty much exhausted our supplies of missile and Tomahawks, and all Iran needs to do to maintain the blockade is a few mines and drones.

We have not exhausted any munitions, we have more than enough to destroy their bridges and powerplants if need be.
We'll see who can withstand the blockades longer.
Sooner or later other countries will want to open Hormuz militarily, India is ready, soon some NATO countries will join the effort.
If not, the EU and Asian countries can enjoy their gas prices.

 

[JoeB131]

The same way the JCPOA inspectors tried to manage Iran's enrichment program. My guess is that we would have joint teams at the enrichment sites seeing how much of the 460 kg of 60% enriched uranium could be recovered and removed. Troops are not trained for nuclear cleanup.

Except you claimed JCPOA didn't work, which is why Cheeto Hitler tore it up.

This war can't drag on for 8-weeks.
Iran would lose much of their oil well capacities, not to mention losing $500m a day of revenue.
My assumption is that the Iranian realists would give up the uranium and the bomb to keep the oil money flowing, while the IRGC and the crazy mullahs would never surrender to "Satan". Yet Kohmeini "drank from the poison chalice", so there is precedence for saving the country, not to mention their theocratic rule.

Right, your guess. Iran has managed under sanctions for decades.

We have not exhausted any munitions, we have more than enough to destroy their bridges and powerplants if need be.

If we did, Trump wouldn't keep postponing attacks.

We'll see who can withstand the blockades longer.
Sooner or later other countries will want to open Hormuz militarily, India is ready, soon some NATO countries will join the effort.
If not, the EU and Asian countries can enjoy their gas prices.

Nobody likes what we are doing here, sonny-boy. Except maybe the Zionists, and they are more of a liablity than a help.

 

[Zavulon]

That's one reason. No need to put troops in combat when we can destroy their grid and bridges, which will pretty much be their end.

But can you actually do it? Especially without nukes?

 

[kyzr]

Except you claimed JCPOA didn't work, which is why Cheeto Hitler tore it up.

We know that they admitted having 460n kg of 60% enriched uranium buried under mountains by Midnight Hammer.
If we're there as they excavate we should recover as much as possible.
As it stands now, they are digging it out with us not there.

Right, your guess. Iran has managed under sanctions for decades.

Sanctions are one thing, China and India bought their oil, now the US blockade has them shut down, Big difference.

If we did, Trump wouldn't keep postponing attacks.

The ceasefire is up this week. We will soon see if its lights out.

Nobody likes what we are doing here, sonny-boy. Except maybe the Zionists, and they are more of a liability than a help.

Yep. They all like the ineffective but "feel-good" JCPOA via diplomacy.
Not sure what "Zionists" have to do with the war? Except ensuring that the intent of the JCPOA is actually enforced.
What we have now is militarily imposed NPT, no nukes period, yes there is a "war" and inconvenience, but Iran needs to be brought to heel. If NATO supported the opening of Hormuz as requested, Hormuz would be open by now.

 

[BS Filter]

But can you actually do it? Especially without nukes?

Of course.

 

[Churchill]

My point is nations and leaders are motivated by good or evil. Some people see it, some don't.

I doubt that simple claim. Most people are motivated by self-interest in my experience and their perosnal definitions of "good" and "evil" are chosen so they can claim to be motivated by good and claim to oppose evil.

What's your own definition of good and evil?

 

[Churchill]

The President must not send in ground troops and

He should call your forces back now, desist in serving Israel, forget all about MIGA.

hopefully his generals have advised him not to.

His generals advised him not to start a war with Iran, he fired them.

 

[BS Filter]

I doubt that simple claim. Most people are motivated by self-interest in my experience and their perosnal definitions of "good" and "evil" are chosen so they can claim to be motivated by good and claim to oppose evil.

What's your own definition of good and evil?

It is that simple. There are good people and evil people.

 

[Churchill]

It is that simple. There are good people and evil people.

I assume there are differences between them?