please attack us and you will see the iranian public side with the mullahs then we can have our fun in iraq!.

I know, but the MOP is still in development and its likely that it will be years away from fielding. More than enuf time for Iran to accumulate enuf weapons grade material for several bombs.

Also, given the size of the MOP, it will not be able to be carried on any of the stealth platforms ie B-2, F-117 etc. That means C-5, C-17, or C-130. None of which could be deployed over Iran unless thier Air Force and Air defences were destroyed, which would require an extensive campaign to do so.

excellent diagram, so they can't really destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities; particularly the most sensitive one-the natanz enrichment facility..best they can do is damage the entrances..

What would a 50 megaton two-stage cobalt salted thermonuclear device do to it? Me thinks it wont care how deep its dug in.

Do you people honestly think the US will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, let alone a nuclear one? and have you considered the repercussions if you did?

I think the US Administration thinks more about the repercussions if they didn't. North Korea developed a nuke and now the USA is forced to negotiate with them, I do not think they wish for the same outcome with Iran.

If the US launches a "preemptive" nuclear strike on Iran, it's time for a civil war.

If our country sinks that low, it's time to stop talking to the 28-percenters, and start shooting at them.

No, it's sick and absurd, but you can bet there are plenty of people who are all for it, including a few in here.

Some people are simply bloodthirsty fools, and unfortunately probably always will be.

Originally posted by Chorlton
Do you people honestly think the US will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, let alone a nuclear one? and have you considered the repercussions if you did?

I seriously doubt that the Bloodlusting Anti-Iran Warhawks of this site who proudly display nuclear explosion avatars (as though it is some means of identifying each other on a crowded site full of liberal freedom haters), have thought long and hard about nuclear warfare and its terrible consequences.

Mind you, many of them probably believe that letting off a nuclear weapon is like letting off a firecracker.

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
there is a difference between expressing ones opinion on a subject and actually wanting it to happen, its called reality..

Oh dear, we did touch a nerve there didn't we. Seems you took my post aimed at numerous people and directed it all upon yourself in your mind. Ah well... some people are just touchy I guess.

So anyway, if you do not advocate it, then why do you feel the need to give us a little image of a cartoonish nuclear explosion?

Yes you may be making a point, but the relish with which you make it is so unbelievably obvious, it could easily be taken for an endorsement of such a possible action on your part.

Some people just dont have a clue and you are one of them..

The reality, seeing as that is what we are discussing here, is that there are numerous people on this site who wish for a nuclear strike on Iran. As we are talking about reality here, and as you are SUCH an advocate of reality, surely you will be able to agree to that? And do you further claim that the majority of people on this site who have nuclear explosions in their avatars are anything else than I suggested?

Oh, and you state that I am one of 'them' based on what exactly?

You will NOT find a single post anywhere, made by me, where I express an interest in a preemptive nuclear strike.

Good for you. But my question still stands.

Now to what I really wanted to say, which is..
If this doesnt happen before Jan 20, 2009 then it will not happen.
I seriously doubt that Billary Clinton will want to start out her term by being the first President since WW2 to use a nuclear device against another country..
Someone just needs to sedate Bush and Cheney until then and we will be ok

That would be nice. But how do you sedate them? They are nigh-on untouchable.

Originally posted by John Percival Hackworth

That would be nice. But how do you sedate them? They are nigh-on untouchable.

With a high powered tranquilizer rifle and preferably hit them in the bum.

Anyhoo, I think that not being able to hit these facilities is a good thing, at least, if each side doesn't do anything stupid.

Iran knows it can't make enough nuclear weapons to ever compete with the US, so they would be plain idiotic to even try and attack them.

Remember, 'sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me'. As long as they don't actually physically attack anyone, everything's dandy.

Dont think that a nculear strike on Iran is the same as on Hirsohima or something. we arent talking about population centers but underground facilities far from cities. Also, depending on the method and type of bomb used, atmospheric nculear contamination can be greatly avoided to a certain extent.

Yeah the connotation is bad because the uninformed and unintelligent hear the words "nuclear strike" and then they all think about what they see or hear on TV like the rest of the sheeple do without knowing how these things can be done.