Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Prevented?

...Or will the world allow it to happen?

The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran. Unlike in the case of Iraq, it will happen without warning, and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact.
...
Both Americans and the rest of the world have left the door wide open for this to happen. The international community has failed to declare the Iraq war illegal (e.g., Resolution 1483) under international law, implicitly condoning the next similar U.S. adventure.
...
So why hasn't Iran been attacked yet?

Only because several elements had to first fall into place, as they now have. The attack on Iran will occur at any time in the coming days or weeks and will include the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.

All of the lies we were told about Iraq to justify that mess are either true about Iran or could be put to the public as true and the USA citizens would buy it.

Was Iraq just practice? A dry run for the real danger of a nuclear attack against Iran?

This article is a very interesting read!

Seriously...with all the things in place such as patriot act and national secury being an excuse for every flippin thing...war is our future for sure. I believe it will not even stop at iran but time will tell.

Right now I think there is no way a war with Iran will be stopped. Sooner or later troops will be withdrawn from Iraq (probably not long after U.S elections).
Once that happens a Democratic or Republican administration will be much better placed to go on about "the Iranian threat". Also if it’s a Democrat who withdraws troops from Iraq then this puts them in an even better position to create a war with Iran, than a Republican (who may still have U.S troops in Iraq being blown to pieces on an almost daily basis).

However if Iran gets the atomic bomb first, then we should think twice about military action because Israel could be a target if the Iran government figures that "whatever they do they're are dead anyway".
And of course judging from what’s left of Saddam government this may well be true.

We might also forget about putting sanctions on Iran if we don't want them to spread nuclear technology. And likewise another way Iran could dig itself out of this mess is if it concentrates more on its WMD programme (particularly biological warfare).

Certainly I think the one thing that would guarantee war above almost all others is if Iran complies like Saddam did by getting rid of his WMD’s. This will mean we can just say to Iran “you’ve still got some” whilst the military thinks “this is going to be a piece of cake with our latest military technology”.
Hay we could even unite and Iran into one huge oilfield with their own U.S friendly “governments”. And of course any Middle Eastern president who says “Israel should be wiped of the map” can take fear in the fact that this might be exactly what happens to them.

doubt Iran could stop a nuke strike even with Russian help.

A nuke strike first? i dont believe it. unless the Iranians do it first.

You're obviously not reading the attached article, instead simply answering the question asked in the title. Sorry I couldn't fit it all into the title.

Seriously, though, the article is very interesting, if you should happen to feel a desire to look a bit deeper than the surface.

Do you think I would ask such a simple question?

The world? Whats the world capable of doing to stop it?


The simple and easy way to look at it all is this. The US, for whatever the reasons good or bad, feels threatened by iran. iran feels threatened by the US. If the world wants to intervene, it needs to do stuff to make both feel more secure. So it should get iran to agree to let the world inspect its nuke facilities and be very open with it, and at the same time get the US to accept the fact that iran is entitled to nuke tech, so long as iran is cooperating.

We will wake up one day to learn that facilities in Iran have been bombed in a joint U.S.-Israeli attack. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that some of the U.S. bombs were nuclear.

An interesting projection, seems that thats the way it'd go too.

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Nygdan]

The international community has failed to declare the Iraq war illegal (e.g., Resolution 1483) under international law, implicitly condoning the next similar U.S. adventure. Furthermore, since the IAEA resolution of Sept. 24, 2005, it is "legal" for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons in a military conflict with Iran.

This is completely off target. This is a line of reasoning that thinks that the world has some sort of power. It doesn't. The whole world was opposed to the Iraq war. Didn't matter. The world has no power.

However, the charges that were false for Iraq are true for Iran, or are at least widely accepted to be true

Well, jesus, if Iran is developing Nuke Weapons and won't stop then it should be attacked.

I read the article. Well, OK, I only read the first sentance.

The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran

I stopped there, because that set the tone for the rest of the article. To me it was based on a false statement because I know something of the recent history of Iran.

With this in mind, I must say that it was not the Bush administration who put the elements together. Iran did it with their historical, and current actions. Much like a teenager who is self destructive.

as posted by Benevolent Heretic
This article is a very interesting read!

An "interesting" read to whom?
One segment of an intended audience?
How can the opposing audience justly look at the article beyond it's surface when there are a number of glaring inaccuracies, etc continually being asserted blantantly as factual truth?

Is this source's intention given and stated objectively or subjectively?
Is what is being said within this article given, cited, and sourced objectively or simply utilized and given to suite an intended and biased agenda?

From my subjective perspective:
The article is profoundly absurd and cites half-truths and half-facts, pieced together simply to serve one's intended audience and agenda.
What is that intended agenda?
The unmitigated spreading of it's anti-war propaganda, stance, and agenda by higher academia [known for its anti-war stances], namely in the guise of Professor Jorge Hirsch, an outspoken anti-war advocate.

How is it that Hirsch can steadily point out the US, UK, and Israel, while failing to point out the EU?
Example:

The U.S. and Israel have made it clear that they will not allow Iran to implement a civilian nuclear program that includes the fuel cycle, because it will bring Iran closer to a point where it could develop nuclear weapons if it so decided.

The EU has made such clear, as well, but certainly no mention of them, in relation to the above assertion.

:shk:
This article's one-sided, targeted audience assertions and line of reasonings are nothing more than what it is asking more of: "creative ideas"!

Creative ideas are needed!

seekerof

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

This article is a very interesting read!

Hmmm. Makes me wonder if you'd also be open-minded enough to consider an article justifying the use of force posted on a website called ProWar.com "a very interesting read"?



[edit on 11/23/2005 by centurion1211]

I agree with you seekerof.....creative is, there is no other alternative they can come up with to deal with the threat!!

I have browsed through the article and it makes sense. But am I the only one who again sees the irony in all of this. This reminded me of an earlier ATS submission stating:

WAR: U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists
A Pentagon planning document envision the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Looks like the US militarys' reasoning for the justification of war is just a tad on the ironic side. Time to nuke Iran because we think they have nuclear weapons programs. That'll git em for sure!

Worst...Post...Ever...

I mean seriously, this is the biggest crock of #e I've read in a while. Anti-war.com? Nuclear strike on Iran? Exactly how does anti-war.com have access to US strategic plans - plans ofa nuclear first strike at that!

A nuclear attack on Tehran will be averted by a unintended nuclear detonation in Damascas Syria. Iran will be implicated and will be isolated.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Worst...Post...Ever...

I mean seriously, this is the biggest crock of #e I've read in a while. Anti-war.com? Nuclear strike on Iran? Exactly how does anti-war.com have access to US strategic plans - plans ofa nuclear first strike at that!

It was a very good article, and what is shows is the LEGAL REQUIREMENTS under international law required for a nuclear first strike.

Its even more clear cut than the justifications for the No-Fly-Zones over Iraq.

The US can now nuke Iran at will....

Originally posted by Seekerof
The article is profoundly absurd and cites half-truths and half-facts, pieced together simply to serve one's intended audience and agenda.

Duh! It's an Anti war site, Seekerof, what do you expect?

The Pro war side of this whole mess does exactly the same thing! They cite half-truths and half-facts, pieced together simply to serve their intended audience and agenda. BushCo does it every day. You do it!

I still think this is an interesting article and opens possibilities that I hadn't thought of before reading it.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Hmmm. Makes me wonder if you'd also be open-minded enough to consider an article justifying the use of force posted on a website called ProWar.com "a very interesting read"?

I have heard 3 years of justification for the use of force. Maybe you're not aware of it but I once supported this war 100%. I used to be you! So yes, I think I'm open-minded enough to hear the other side. I've heard it. I hear it here on this board all the time.

This honestly was an interesting article to me. I don't insist everyone find it interesting, but thanks for your responses.

I found it interesting, a little far fetched, but interesting. I really don't see us using nuclear weapons on Iran, but I guess since I'm no authority, I'm just speculating. I do however, recall there being a firm belief by many on this board that we would attack Iran by June of this year. That obviously didn't occur, and I hope it never does.

I don't get it. These articles about no WMD found in Iraq.

It's like having a body scattered in pieces over an acre of land, and having the detective say "no body has been found".

Everything needed for WMD in part, and intent, were found in Iraq. The facilities, the paperwork, the equipment, the chemicals, and the delivery weapons.

The UN investigations knew that from the beginning. their job was to find the actual WMD. The result, was admit they couldn't find WMDs or say there wasn't any. Neither is true.

Here's the point, if your country was attacked, which part of the WMD would you pick up and run away with to hide and use another day? Not the little stuff, not the heavy equipment, but the actual WMD themselves. They fit in a truck, and get lost in the desert.

The opposite group of news dogs are saying that the following totals have been found in Iraq to date, all bits and pieces, but no complete WMDs:

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over
populated areas

This type of stuff has no purpose other than WMD.

Iran can produce 1000 tons of chemical weapons per year. And has a who knows how big stockpile already. I forget. Add enriched uranium to the mix, stir well, and see what happens.

There is absolutely no reason to use nuclear weapons on Iran. They have an ineffective air force, an army of volunteers, and no navy. Iran would have to use WMD extensively themselves, before any nation would consider doing the same. That's the problem. And that's the fear.

BH,

Personally I see this as two separate issues.

The first issue is will the US/Allies/Israel strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Personally, I think Israel-if no one else- will be forced to take action to prevent Iran from getting/making nuclear weapons.

The second issue is will US/Allies/Israel use nuclear weapons to get to Iran's nuclear facilities? That is a far more interesting question. Their weapon facilities are deep underground and may not be accessible by even the largest conventional "bunker buster" bombs. It may require nuclear tipped weapons to dig down that deep and destroy the facilities. Whereas they would be very tiny nuclear weapons, they would still be nuclear. This opens a whole new can of worms-a nuclear first strike is just not a good thing by inter nation community standards.

Now if-god forbid- a nuclear weapon went of in the US and or an ally and evidence pointed to direct or indirect support by Iran-that would give the US justification to take nuclear "response" I am also taking into account that this could be done by the US gov as a justification to launch a strike/nuclear strike on Iran.

If this happens-god save us all!