The United States and the World can not take the risk whether Iran has a Nuke or Not

[VySky]

This is what we heard in 2003 about Iraq. They didn't.

This is 2025.

 

[Pyrite]

What you ignore is that the Iranian regime is not rational.
"Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday endorsed chants of “Death to America” during a speech to workers in Tehran, just one day before Iranian negotiators are set to resume a fourth round of nuclear talks with the United States,"

Khamenei endorses ‘Death to America’ chants ahead of nuclear talks | The Jerusalem Post

Khamenei praised the crowd's anti-American stance as talks in Vienna approach amid Tehran's defiance.

www.jpost.com

Post #56.

Post #56


So, rhetoric is a way in which we judge a leader's rationality?

It's not rhetoric. It's an article of faith, a national goal.

Post #125


It's a speech. It's rhetoric.

Nice of you to include rhetoric as a standard by which we judge a leader's rationality.

 

[Pyrite]

This is 2025.

Post #126


It looks as if Republican Presidents in both 2003 and in 2025 are easily fooled, easily manipulated.

 

[Tigerace117]

Oh, I guess that explains the rational way they treat their own women, too. I should have known the US is responsible for their rational insistence on having a nuclear bomb. I won't even question their rational support for terrorists that rationally interrupt the world's oil flow through the Suez Canal.

But here's what Human Rights Watch says about heir rational treatment of women.
"Iranian women experience discrimination in law and in practice in ways that deeply impact their lives, particularly with regard to marriage, divorce and custody issues. Post-1979 compulsory hijab laws affect virtually every aspect of women’s public life in Iran. In today’s Iran, a woman’s access to employment, education, social benefits and proper health care — and even her mere public presence in society— depends on complying with compulsory hijab laws, which are routinely enforced through a web of rules and arbitrary interpretation by state agents as well as businesses."

Purely rational and, of course, our fault.

Uh….yes, given the fact Iran had a democracy right up until the U.S. destroyed it for the “crime” of wanting to control their own oil, and the pro American dictatorship installed’s mismanagement directly led to the Revolution in the first place.

America treats its own women so well that it…oh wait

If Iran had a nuclear arsenal the US and Israel wouldn’t have dared to launch the current campaign of aggression. That’s just reality.

 

[Tigerace117]

Their strength

Israel’s “strength” in what?

 

[Grand Mal]

Sure. And why not? It’s either that or an Islamic terrorist State develops a nuclear arsenal.

Remember which country harboured Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaida?
That country has nukes.

 

[Greenbeard]

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Uh….yes, given the fact Iran had a democracy

Had a democracy under the Ayatollahs? Maybe what passed for a Muslim religious "democracy" in the 14th century. Or was that our fault, too?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The United States needs to finish this. We must reach a confidence level to where we can reasonably conclude Iran does hot have a nuclear weapon or the capacity to make one any time soon.
What say you. Is it worth the risk to do nothing?

Israel seems to be doing a good enough job all on their own. We should just leave it to them.

We should supply Israel with as many 5000-pound bunker busters as they can use however.

 

[Pyrite]

Israel seems to be doing a good enough job all on their own. We should just leave it to them.

We should supply Israel with as many 5000-pound bunker busters as they can use however.

The Israeli Air Force is unable to deliver anti-bunker bombs larger than 4,000 lbs.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The Israeli Air Force is unable to deliver anti-bunker bombs larger than 4,000 lbs.

Nonsense.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

How many troops are you willing to commit?

You putting your ass on the front lines?
Going to go volunteer to fight?

Are you volunteering or not?

I wouldn't advocate for a war that I personally wouldn't sign up to fight in

Bombing Iran's illegal nuclear program does not require boots on the ground.

 

[Pyrite]

The Israeli Air Force is unable to deliver anti-bunker bombs larger than 4,000 lbs.

Nonsense.

Post #136


It's not "nonsense". It's reality.

The United States, of course, has larger anti-bunker bombs, but the USAF also has the means to deliver them. The Israeli Air Force does not.

Why do you think the IDF has not already used larger "bunker-busting" munitions against Iran's hardened facilities?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

It's not "nonsense". It's reality.

That is incorrect. Not only has Israel always had a clear ability to deliver 5000-pound bunker busters, but they have actually done so in past wars.

The United States, of course, has larger anti-bunker bombs, but the USAF also has the means to deliver them. The Israeli Air Force does not.

The fact that the US can drop 30000-pound bunker busters does not mean that Israel cannot drop 5000-pound bunker busters.

Why do you think the IDF has not already used larger "bunker-busting" munitions against Iran's hardened facilities?

They might have already used up the ones that we have previously given to them.

 

[Pyrite]

That is incorrect. Not only has Israel always had a clear ability to deliver 5000-pound bunker busters, but they have actually done so in past wars.



They might have already used up the ones that we have previously given to them.

That would have been pretty stupid of them....poor planning.

And why hasn't trump replenished that supply?

(BTW, 5,000-lb bunker-busting bombs wouldn't be enough to take out the hardened facilities. Which, of course, accounts for why the IDF, if it ever had them and if it ever had the ability to deliver them....didn't use them against Iran.)

 

[Toggle Almendro]

That would have been pretty stupid of them....poor planning.
And why hasn't trump replenished that supply?

I am not privy to the details of Israel's supplies or what the US is currently providing them. If I were, I would probably be prohibited from commenting.

But I firmly support providing Israel with more of these bombs.

(BTW, 5,000-lb bunker-busting bombs wouldn't be enough to take out the hardened facilities.

Should be sufficient for Natanz.

Which, of course, accounts for why the IDF, if it ever had them and if it ever had the ability to deliver them....didn't use them against Iran.)

In 2009, the Palestinians refused to negotiate with Israel because of the BS excuse that Olmert lacked legitimacy. In 2010 that excuse was no longer effective so the Palestinians had to come up with a new BS excuse for refusing to negotiate with Israel. They decided to pretend that the settlements were an obstacle to peace. Barack Obama put the Palestinians to the test and offered Israel several hundred 5000-pound bunker busters in exchange for halting settlement construction for a year. Israel took the deal and got the bombs.

The F15 has always been able to drop 5000-pound bunker busters. That is how we dropped them on Iraq in 1991.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Iran has been “weeks away” from nuclear weapons for more than a decade according to Bibi.

We’ve been hearing about Iran being within inches of having nukes for how many years now?

Iran has been weeks away from having nuclear weapons since 1995.

Failure to take those earlier warnings seriously is why it is now necessary to bomb Iran.

The risk seems vanishingly small that this time it is true.

It has always been true.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

What is the "immediate task"?
Be specific.

Blow up Iran’s illegal nuclear program.

How will "bombing the daylights out of" Iran prevent that country from making nuclear weapons?

Blowing up their illegal nuclear facilities will prevent the use of those facilities.

Remember, some of the most important facilities are hardened.

Give Israel more 5000-pound bunker busters. That will take care of Natanz.

How will "bomb and bomb again" eliminate the threat that Iran will produce nuclear bombs?
Be specific.

Blowing up an illegal nuclear facility prevents the use of that facility.

What, exactly, do you believe the USA is capable of doing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
Be specific.

The US could take out Fordow.

That is a worthy endeavor. I am unsure if it is worth the war that would follow however.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

B U L L S H I T !​

THIS ARGUMENT WAS BULLHIT IN 2002

THIS ARGUMENT IS BULLSHIT IN 2025

Warmongers hope we are quick to forget.

That is incorrect. Enforcing the NPT is important.

 

[Pyrite]

I am not privy to the details of Israel's supplies or what the US is currently providing them. If I were, I would probably be prohibited from commenting.

But I firmly support providing Israel with more of these bombs.



Should be sufficient for Natanz.

Yeah, but not at all for Fordo/Fordow.

In 2009, the Palestinians refused to negotiate with Israel because of the BS excuse that Olmert lacked legitimacy. In 2010 that excuse was no longer effective so the Palestinians had to come up with a new BS excuse for refusing to negotiate with Israel. They decided to pretend that the settlements were an obstacle to peace. Barack Obama put the Palestinians to the test and offered Israel several hundred 5000-pound bunker busters in exchange for halting settlement construction for a year. Israel took the deal and got the bombs.

The F15 has always been able to drop 5000-pound bunker busters. That is how we dropped them on Iraq in 1991.

Post #141

So you say. But the IDF seems to have a slightly-different version: the F-15I.

`````````````````````````````````````

Israel's trying to wipe out Iran's nuke program. It won't be an easy kill.

Iran has many scientists with nuclear expertise and has stored its most critical facilities in bunkers that may be beyond the reach of Israel's bombs.

www.businessinsider.com

June 13, 2025

...However, military and nuclear experts say firepower alone won't be enough to completely wipe out Iran's nuclear program....[Iran] has stored its most critical facilities in bunkers buried deep underground.

This makes the facilities particularly challenging targets that, from the air, can only be reached by the largest bunker busters, which Israel lacks, or repeated strikes in the same spots.

Natanz, home to Iran's largest uranium enrichment site, is located several floors underground in the center of the country. The Israel Defense Forces said its airstrikes damaged an underground area of the facility that contains an enrichment hall with centrifuges, electrical rooms, and additional infrastructure.

Satellite imagery captured on Friday revealed what appears to be significant damage at Natanz, but only on the surface.

Iran's other main enrichment site, Fordow, is buried even deeper in the side of a mountain and is the country's most "hardened" facility, said Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow for proliferation and nuclear policy at the UK-based Royal United Services Institute think tank.

In comments shared with Business Insider, Dolzikova said Fordow has not been affected by the Israeli strikes, nor have other locations. "Should Iran make a decision to produce a nuclear weapon, it would likely do that at hardened and potentially still secret sites," she said.

Later on Friday, Iranian media reported explosions at Fordow, suggesting that Israeli forces may be attacking the site in a new wave of strikes.

It's unclear what air-to-ground munitions Israel used to strike Natanz and the other targets affiliated with Iran's nuclear program. However, it would take a very large bunker-buster bomb to reach underground and destroy the more hardened sites.

The likely best weapon for the job is the US military's GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, one of the most powerful non-nuclear bombs and the largest bunker buster in America's arsenal at 15 tons. These munitions can only be carried by the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber and the B-21 Raider in development.

Israel doesn't have bomber aircraft capable of carrying the largest bunker-buster munitions. The IDF shared footage showing its fighter jets — F-35s, F-16s, and F-15s — taking off and landing during the strikes. Weapons experts pointed out that some of the aircraft appear to be carrying 2,000-pound guided bombs. Israel's F-15I, though, can carry 4,000-pound anti-bunker bombs.

Military analysts with RUSI estimated in March that the Fordow site could be as deep as 260 feet underground, likely beyond the reach of even America's MOP. Damaging it would almost certainly require repeated strikes, likely over days or weeks....

 

[Toggle Almendro]

"Israel doesn't have bomber aircraft capable of carrying the largest bunker-buster munitions. The IDF shared footage showing its fighter jets — F-35s, F-16s, and F-15s — taking off and landing during the strikes. Weapons experts pointed out that some of the aircraft appear to be carrying 2,000-pound guided bombs. Israel's F-15I, though, can carry 4,000-pound anti-bunker bombs."

That is a misprint in the article. The 4 should be a 5.

 

[Pyrite]

That is a misprint in the article. The 4 should be a 5.

Could well be - and I'm open to the idea - but you haven't proved that the IDF's F-151 can carry 5000-lb anti-bunker bombs.

If you can provide that (via copies and pastes of excerpts from credible sources to which you provide the links), I'll gladly correct my records.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

What would you say about North Korea? Pakistan? China? Russia? They anywhere from hundreds to thousands. Iran doesn't even have one.

It's an acceptable risk that other adversaries have hundreds to thousands of nuclear weapons.
But if Iran has "just one" nuclear weapon, that is an unacceptable risk.
This makes no sense.

This is sort of like asking why it is against the law for bank robbers to have machine guns when the police are allowed to have them.

Note that the world has reacted to North Korea's illegal nuclear program by crushing them with overwhelming sanctions. Not quite the same thing as bombing them, but their illegal nuclear program has not found any acceptance in the world community.

 

[Redress]

Failure to take those earlier warnings seriously is why it is now necessary to bomb Iran.

Failure to take action on wrong claims is why we now need to take action on a wrong claim? That makes exactly zero sense.

It has always been true.

Iran has spent the last 30 years weeks away from a nuclear weapon? Did you think at all before making this post?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

We didn’t attack Pakistan because they have nuclear weapons, even though 90% of Pakistanis hate America’s guts. Same reason India and Pakistan haven’t nuked each other into oblivion. Same reason we don’t touch North Korea.

If you let every nation in the world have nuclear weapons, that deterrence will not hold. It will only be a matter of time before a nuclear war kills several billion people.

Russia invaded Ukraine because Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal. We attacked Iraq because they didn’t have nukes.
Nuclear weapons are the only thing keeping the so-called “peace.”

Iran committing terrorism while deterring any response to that terrorism is hardly an ideal situation.

And now you’re arguing we should bomb Iran back to the 14th century because you think they’re developing nukes—even though every U.S. and Western intelligence agency says they aren’t?

Oh please. What do you think they are making weapons grade uranium and plutonium for?

They aren't using it to make washing machines.

Israel played the U.S.—and Trump—like a damn fiddle. And now we’re stuck in another unwanted war, dragged in by Bibi

I have not noticed the US being dragged into this war.

“Nathen Yahoo,” who’s turned into the Middle East’s resident bully, hell-bent on some apocalyptic crusade.

Nonsense. He is just defending Israel from Iran's aggression.