If you were POTUS, how far would you go to deny Iran nukes?

[phongn]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

Would you then generalize this to many other nations? I'm not trying to be snide here: would you consider wide-scale nuclear proliferation to be stabilizing?

[Axis Kast]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

You are frequently very concerned to remind us of the whole raft of faults, real and perceived, of the previous administration, which you insist deserves to be pilloried and prosecuted for its "crimes."

How, then, do you turn around and justify sanction and support for proliferation of nuclear weapons by a regime that is a noted sponsor of terrorism; a grand mal abuser of human rights; and appears to lack unitary government? Iran would join Pakistan and India in the minority of nuclear powers without effective civilian control of its nuclear weapons. And the Revolutionary Guard are often perceived to be hard-liners and ideologues relative to other Iranian institutions.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Keep in mind that doing nothing is essentially doing something. Israel has made it clear they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Sitting on our hands means they take care of it in their style with all the aftereffects that go along with that.

Well, CAN they disable Iran's nuclear program ?

And speaking as a hypothetical US President, if they can and I actually wanted to stop Iran, wouldn't it be more in the national interest to let Israel do it and take the flak for it ?

[Guardsman Bass]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

You are frequently very concerned to remind us of the whole raft of faults, real and perceived, of the previous administration, which you insist deserves to be pilloried and prosecuted for its "crimes."

How, then, do you turn around and justify sanction and support for proliferation of nuclear weapons by a regime that is a noted sponsor of terrorism; a grand mal abuser of human rights; and appears to lack unitary government? Iran would join Pakistan and India in the minority of nuclear powers without effective civilian control of its nuclear weapons. And the Revolutionary Guard are often perceived to be hard-liners and ideologues relative to other Iranian institutions.

He's probably just being a bit of a contrarian, seeing as how it's unlikely any US President could actually give Iran nukes without getting his ass hauled in for impeachment, and that he apparently didn't really care about the fact that Iran would then be free to blackmail its other neighbors. Either that, or he thinks normalizing relations with Iran would be easy.

In any case, I think it's unlikely that you'll actually convince Iran to voluntarily give up nuclear weapons research, considering that they consider themselves under threat and are trying to expand their influence in the Middle East. Voluntary relinquishment of nuclear weapons programs has happened before (the Treaty of Tlatelolco in South America), but good luck getting Israel to give up its nukes (which is what Iran would probably demand if we ever tried something like the above).

[Axis Kast]

He's probably just being a contrarian asshole, seeing as how it's unlikely any US President could actually give Iran nukes without getting his ass hauled in for impeachment, and that he apparently didn't really care about the fact that Iran would then be free to blackmail its other neighbors.

I'm less interested in the "how," and a lot more eager to hear about his "why." It's like he walks around with a massive guilt complex that absolves others of any moral responsibility and presumes their essential goodness. What's even more galling is that the prerequisite for finding favor in Elfdart's eyes is apparently receiving a formal stamp of disapproval from the United States. How about all those other governments in the Middle East that consider Iran a palpable threat? Back when it was the Shah who bullied them, I'm guessing Elfdart would've raised quite a stink in their favor. Personally, I just want to hear him justify, for once, his one-man crusade to blame America. Noam Chomsky talks about holding us to "higher standards." But it becomes counter-productive when others can suddenly do no wrong.

In any case, I think it's unlikely that you'll actually convince Iran to voluntarily give up nuclear weapons research, considering that they consider themselves under threat and are trying to expand their influence in the Middle East. Voluntary relinquishment of nuclear weapons programs has happened before (the Treaty of Tlatelolco in South America), but good luck getting Israel to give up its nukes (which is what Iran would probably demand if we ever tried something like the above).

My personal opinion is that it's a lost cause. The South African experience proved that it's practically impossible to stop a determined proliferator, and Iran appears to have virtual weapons capability at this point in time. The United States can offer a range of valuable concessions in return for an intrusive inspections regime with complete freedom-of-access (the essential minimum for confident verification), but Iran surely perceives the futility of our position, and will most likely hold out. We'll impose various rounds of sanctions, followed by the Europeans, probably while Moscow prevaricates. If Obama is smart, he'll point out that the Europeans tend to be slower to impose penalties despite establishing more rigorous criteria of accountability, meaning that they claim a threat even more dangerous than we do, no matter who's out front. At best, we'll make Iran pay in time, money, and social stability for their weapons program by choking off their access to international finance and discouraging bilateral trade partners. At worst, we'll do nothing. Either way, they will have an arsenal that is good for little but bragging rights.

Well, CAN they disable Iran's nuclear program ?

And speaking as a hypothetical US President, if they can and I actually wanted to stop Iran, wouldn't it be more in the national interest to let Israel do it and take the flak for it ?

Can Israel disable Iran's program? No. I doubt the United States could do it, either. We could stall them, temporarily, for some duration dependent on how many strikes we wish to launch.

I don't imagine Israel will act. The "Iranian problem" isn't amenable to a one-off strike like Syria's reactor complex, and Iran isn't a pariah on quite the same level. There may be a deal to rush-deploy Patriot-3 and other missile defenses as a feel-good gesture. Behind the scenes, I'm sure Washington will try to keep the Israelis out-of-play.

[Guardsman Bass]

Can Israel disable Iran's program? No. I doubt the United States could do it, either. We could stall them, temporarily, for some duration dependent on how many strikes we wish to launch.

I don't think Israel actually can hit all of Iran's sites, at least not without re-fueling over Iraq's airspace. They just don't have planes with long enough range.

[The Grim Squeaker]

As for me? Rogue states building up nuclear arms and kickstarting a regional nuclear arms race in an already unstable region is bad. That's all I'll say, without bringin up my personal opinion.

The 'rogue state' nonsense aside, how the fuck can you blame Iran for 'kickstarting a regional nuclear arms race' when Pakistan and of course Israel already have nukes? If anyone in that neighbourhood started an 'arms race' wouldn't it be Israel seeing as how it developed them 1st?

I say rogue state due to them being known supporters of international terrorism (Iraq, Lebanon, the Gaza strip).
And as for kick starting a nuclear arms race, there's the fact that it was reported publicly that both Egypt and the UAE began badgering the USA for nukes due to Iran, in my opinion they're less afraid of, say, Israel encroaching on their field of influence (their rhetoric aside) than they are a fellow Arab (nut not Sunni) state. I am talking about Pakistan's nukes of course, I have no idea what you mean by claims of Israeli nukes.

[Posner]

And speaking as a hypothetical US President, if they can and I actually wanted to stop Iran, wouldn't it be more in the national interest to let Israel do it and take the flak for it ?

I think it would be better if Israel did it than if America did it. But not by much. Everyone knows Israel would basicly have to ask for permisision for a strike, plus Israel would have to fly over Iraq. It's very thinly veiled, but still better for America than doing it ourselves.

[Darth Hoth]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

Are you by the same logic advocating total nuclear proliferation, arming every small to medium state with significant strategic capabilities, or is Iran to be considered exceptional? If so, for what reason?

The 'rogue state' nonsense aside, how the fuck can you blame Iran for 'kickstarting a regional nuclear arms race' when Pakistan and of course Israel already have nukes? If anyone in that neighbourhood started an 'arms race' wouldn't it be Israel seeing as how it developed them 1st?

Have Israel's nuclear weapons been confirmed?

[Mr Bean]

Have Israel's nuclear weapons been confirmed?

Officially No we will not offically confirm Israel's nuclear strike capability
Unofficially Hell yes

Stuart would be the one to talk to on this but speaking for myself a quick Google search turned up Global Security information on Israel stockpile. Global Security
High end 200 nukes, low end 75 nukes. Most of these being in the low to middle Kiloton range IE 2 mile killers.

[Darth Hoth]

I know of the estimates, but as far as my limited knowledge of such matters do, those describe the capacity they have had to build them, estimating by the amount of material they can produce, not what they actually have. I meant more like, is there any solid evidence of actual deployable warheads?

[Master of Ossus]

I would simply offer to sell B-2 bombers to Israel if Iran didn't credibly stop its weapons program, with a small portion of the proceeds going to the Red Cross and South or Central American charities and the rest going towards the budget deficit.

[Darksider]

I would simply offer to sell B-2 bombers to Israel if Iran didn't credibly stop its weapons program, with a small portion of the proceeds going to the Red Cross and South or Central American charities and the rest going towards the budget deficit.

do we have any B-2s to sell?

I was under the impression that the U.S. strategic bomber force was already critically under-equipped.

[Darth Wong]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

I... see.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

DEATH TO AMERICA!

You may wish to reconsider, Mr. Hypothetical President.

By your idiotic definition, it would be treason for anyone of Iranian descent in America to send money to his family back home.

[Rogue 9]

I... see.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

DEATH TO AMERICA!

You may wish to reconsider, Mr. Hypothetical President.

By your idiotic definition, it would be treason for anyone of Iranian descent in America to send money to his family back home.

No, it wouldn't at all. First, his family is not the government of Iran. Second, presumably relatively small amounts of money are not nuclear fucking weapons. Sending money to support one's family is not at all equivalent to arming a declared enemy of the United States for war.

And third, it isn't my definition. It's the definition of the supreme law of the United States. That definition exists because the Crown of Britain had an idiotic definition of treason, namely "any activity by someone the King wants to lock up." I daresay it's a damned sight better than the majority of definitions of the crime around the world.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I would simply offer to sell B-2 bombers to Israel if Iran didn't credibly stop its weapons program, with a small portion of the proceeds going to the Red Cross and South or Central American charities and the rest going towards the budget deficit.

How would that change anything ?

[Ryan Thunder]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

Well hey, why the hell not? I mean, they elected a holocaust-denier and a "supreme leader" who rules by virtue of being some kind of religious figure, and are known to fund terrorist groups. Nothing unreasonable about giving them nukes, sir, no, nothing at all!

Can Israel disable Iran's program? No. I doubt the United States could do it, either. We could stall them, temporarily, for some duration dependent on how many strikes we wish to launch.

I don't imagine Israel will act. The "Iranian problem" isn't amenable to a one-off strike like Syria's reactor complex, and Iran isn't a pariah on quite the same level. There may be a deal to rush-deploy Patriot-3 and other missile defenses as a feel-good gesture. Behind the scenes, I'm sure Washington will try to keep the Israelis out-of-play.

Would a in-and-out ground operation be feasible? Ignore their armed forces save where they actively engage mine, capture and confiscate or obliterate the facilities, equipment, and materials in question, and then leave. Make reparations for whatever unrelated, non-military stuff was damaged in the process. Then offer (again) to give them nuclear power plants that won't help them to produce weapons.

[Elfdart]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

Would you then generalize this to many other nations? I'm not trying to be snide here: would you consider wide-scale nuclear proliferation to be stabilizing?

I would start with Iran, since that's the country getting the most sabres rattled in its direction. Nothing deters a predator like the fear that he, too might be killed if he attacks. Lyndon Johnson told John Connolly that he wouldn't use nukes on Vietnam because China and Russia would retaliate. As bad as that war was, the nuclear deterrent kept the death toll around 3 million instead of the tens of millions who would have died once the mushroom clouds started dotting the globe.

You are frequently very concerned to remind us of the whole raft of faults, real and perceived, of the previous administration, which you insist deserves to be pilloried and prosecuted for its "crimes."

How, then, do you turn around and justify sanction and support for proliferation of nuclear weapons by a regime that is a noted sponsor of terrorism; a grand mal abuser of human rights; and appears to lack unitary government? Iran would join Pakistan and India in the minority of nuclear powers without effective civilian control of its nuclear weapons. And the Revolutionary Guard are often perceived to be hard-liners and ideologues relative to other Iranian institutions.

How many nuclear bombs have gone off in the cities of India and Pakistan? Zero! Why? Because nothing makes a drooling creep keep it in his pants like the fear of getting it shot off by an intended victim. Besides, it's not really possible to get the countries who have nuclear weapons to give them up, so the next best thing is to see to it that their intended victims have them, too. It would be nice if the US wasn't awash in criminals armed with handguns, but since that's not likely to change I can't fault homeowners and Mom & Pop stores for arming themselves until criminally-minded dickheads finally leave them alone.

I say rogue state due to them being known supporters of international terrorism (Iraq, Lebanon, the Gaza strip).
And as for kick starting a nuclear arms race, there's the fact that it was reported publicly that both Egypt and the UAE began badgering the USA for nukes due to Iran, in my opinion they're less afraid of, say, Israel encroaching on their field of influence (their rhetoric aside) than they are a fellow Arab (nut not Sunni) state. I am talking about Pakistan's nukes of course, I have no idea what you mean by claims of Israeli nukes.

The United States and Israel supported a vastly larger amount of terror in South Africa, Guatemala and El Salvador. I don't see either country giving up their nukes.

Are you by the same logic advocating total nuclear proliferation, arming every small to medium state with significant strategic capabilities, or is Iran to be considered exceptional? If so, for what reason?

I don't think it should be foisted upon them, but sure -why not?

Well hey, why the hell not? I mean, they elected a holocaust-denier and a "supreme leader" who rules by virtue of being some kind of religious figure, and are known to fund terrorist groups. Nothing unreasonable about giving them nukes, sir, no, nothing at all!

We had Ronald Reagan, who claimed that the SS thugs buried in Bitburg were victims of the Nazi Holocaust just like the people who were killed in the death camps. He wasn't a full-blown denier, but he was a revisionist (as was his chief speechwriter Pat Buchanan) and he had thousands of nukes at his disposal. Maybe Achmadinejad can have half as many.

[Guardsman Bass]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

Would you then generalize this to many other nations? I'm not trying to be snide here: would you consider wide-scale nuclear proliferation to be stabilizing?

I would start with Iran, since that's the country getting the most sabres rattled in its direction. Nothing deters a predator like the fear that he, too might be killed if he attacks. Lyndon Johnson told John Connolly that he wouldn't use nukes on Vietnam because China and Russia would retaliate. As bad as that war was, the nuclear deterrent kept the death toll around 3 million instead of the tens of millions who would have died once the mushroom clouds started dotting the globe.

Iran is a predator, in case you forgot. Why do you think pretty much all the other Middle East states except Syria are worried about Iran getting nukes?

You are frequently very concerned to remind us of the whole raft of faults, real and perceived, of the previous administration, which you insist deserves to be pilloried and prosecuted for its "crimes."

How, then, do you turn around and justify sanction and support for proliferation of nuclear weapons by a regime that is a noted sponsor of terrorism; a grand mal abuser of human rights; and appears to lack unitary government? Iran would join Pakistan and India in the minority of nuclear powers without effective civilian control of its nuclear weapons. And the Revolutionary Guard are often perceived to be hard-liners and ideologues relative to other Iranian institutions.

How many nuclear bombs have gone off in the cities of India and Pakistan? Zero! Why? Because nothing makes a drooling creep keep it in his pants like the fear of getting it shot off by an intended victim. Besides, it's not really possible to get the countries who have nuclear weapons to give them up, so the next best thing is to see to it that their intended victims have them, too. It would be nice if the US wasn't awash in criminals armed with handguns, but since that's not likely to change I can't fault homeowners and Mom & Pop stores for arming themselves until criminally-minded dickheads finally leave them alone.

Why? Is it somehow important that Iran be next to invulnerable to outside attacks to you?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Would a in-and-out ground operation be feasible? Ignore their armed forces save where they actively engage mine, capture and confiscate or obliterate the facilities, equipment, and materials in question, and then leave. Make reparations for whatever unrelated, non-military stuff was damaged in the process. Then offer (again) to give them nuclear power plants that won't help them to produce weapons.

Assuming that such an invasion actually worked; it would underline just how much they NEED nukes. It would cement the anti-American factions hold on power by underlining the fact that yes, we really ARE as bad as claimed. And it would just put things off for a bit while they rebuilt their nuclear program; to not do so would be political suicide, not to mention dereliction of duty.

The fact is, it's not only rational for them to want nukes; under present circumstances, with America being as implacably hostile as it has been for decades ( since before the Islamist revolution ), it's clearly their duty to acquire nukes to protect their people.

[Master of Ossus]

I would simply offer to sell B-2 bombers to Israel if Iran didn't credibly stop its weapons program, with a small portion of the proceeds going to the Red Cross and South or Central American charities and the rest going towards the budget deficit.

How would that change anything ?

It does several things. The B-2 would give Israel a weapon platform with which it could legitimately attack Iran with virtual impunity. It also removes the American ability to stop Israel, or even warn Iran of attack, so Iran has to play ball with Israel, diplomatically, rather than the US (so the US isn't responsible for whatever happens). Moreover, Israeli Spirits are pretty much Syria's worst nightmare, and so Syria and other nearby states might even take it on themselves to start kicking Iran around to get them to discontinue their nuclear program, and so I think it quite likely that the problem would stop without us ever having to make the exchange. If we DID have to go through with it, though, then it would all be up to Israel, which sets them up as a legitimate buffer to stop Iranian nuclear deployment. The US would also, probably, slightly benefit from the proceeds of the sale. As for Central and South American charities? That's not likely to change anything material, but it might encourage them to sign off on the plan and improve relations while making the sale seem positively humanitarian.

Edit: In response to your last message (which I disagree with), this would totally change the calculus: it's no longer their duty to acquire nuclear weapons, and would be downright irresponsible for them to pursue such an objective since the Israelis would almost certainly punish them heavily and the Iranians couldn't do anything remotely resembling what Israel could do to them.

[Alyeska]

It does several things. The B-2 would give Israel a weapon platform with which it could legitimately attack Iran with virtual impunity. It also removes the American ability to stop Israel, or even warn Iran of attack, so Iran has to play ball with Israel, diplomatically, rather than the US (so the US isn't responsible for whatever happens). Moreover, Israeli Spirits are pretty much Syria's worst nightmare, and so Syria and other nearby states might even take it on themselves to start kicking Iran around to get them to discontinue their nuclear program, and so I think it quite likely that the problem would stop without us ever having to make the exchange. If we DID have to go through with it, though, then it would all be up to Israel, which sets them up as a legitimate buffer to stop Iranian nuclear deployment. The US would also, probably, slightly benefit from the proceeds of the sale. As for Central and South American charities? That's not likely to change anything material, but it might encourage them to sign off on the plan and improve relations while making the sale seem positively humanitarian.

Edit: In response to your last message (which I disagree with), this would totally change the calculus: it's no longer their duty to acquire nuclear weapons, and would be downright irresponsible for them to pursue such an objective since the Israelis would almost certainly punish them heavily and the Iranians couldn't do anything remotely resembling what Israel could do to them.

Better to sell them F-117s. We have them sitting in mothballs ready to be reactivated if we want. Israel already uses tactical level aircraft for delivery and the F-117 can do the job. Plus they can get something like 50 of them. If we were inclined to see a B2 (which we really aren't, at all), it would only be one. 50 gives Israel a very credible force of stealth aircraft at no cost to us.

[Kanastrous]

F-117s have a short un-refuelled range. Which means in-flight refuelling, which is problematic.

[Master of Ossus]

Better to sell them F-117s. We have them sitting in mothballs ready to be reactivated if we want. Israel already uses tactical level aircraft for delivery and the F-117 can do the job. Plus they can get something like 50 of them. If we were inclined to see a B2 (which we really aren't, at all), it would only be one. 50 gives Israel a very credible force of stealth aircraft at no cost to us.

Does the F-117 have a long enough range to get from Israel to Iran? Also, IIRC it carries fairly small munitions and the Iranian weapons depots are hardened. I think the B2 is the right plane to give them, even if it means we have to take a significant portion of our air-power out of action (not that we're using them in Afghanistan or Iraq).

[Alyeska]

Better to sell them F-117s. We have them sitting in mothballs ready to be reactivated if we want. Israel already uses tactical level aircraft for delivery and the F-117 can do the job. Plus they can get something like 50 of them. If we were inclined to see a B2 (which we really aren't, at all), it would only be one. 50 gives Israel a very credible force of stealth aircraft at no cost to us.

Does the F-117 have a long enough range to get from Israel to Iran? Also, IIRC it carries fairly small munitions and the Iranian weapons depots are hardened. I think the B2 is the right plane to give them, even if it means we have to take a significant portion of our air-power out of action (not that we're using them in Afghanistan or Iraq).

Just read up on the F-117, horrible range. If you want to give them a powerful chip, there are other options. We have only about 20 B2s. On the other hand we have 80+ B1 Lancers. We could sell them one or two Lancers. Good range, fairly hard to detect, high speed. Or we could sell them F-22s. New F-22s to help keep our production line going.