Should The US Use It’s Capabilities To Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Capability?

The Iranians put in a great effort to build nuclear facilities in locations that are just about impregnable to conventional munitions.

It seems that the US does have armaments that can destroy these installations. However, Israel does not have the means to deliver them on target.

So the question is not if the US should furnish the required “bomb” to get the job done, but should the US actually do the deed.

Negotiations are useless. It really comes down to whether we are ok with Iran having nuclear weapons, or do we feel it is worth the effort to insure they do not.

There are consequences involved in either decision.

As a side note, and something to think about. How much easier would it be to deal with Putin’s Russia if he did not have nuclear weapons.?

The Iranians put in a great effort to build nuclear facilities in locations that are just about impregnable to conventional munitions.

It seems that the US does have armaments that can destroy these installations. However, Israel does not have the means to deliver them on target.

So the question is not if the US should furnish the required “bomb” to get the job done, but should the US actually do the deed.

Negotiations are useless. It really comes down to whether we are ok with Iran having nuclear weapons, or do we feel it is worth the effort to insure they do not.

There are consequences involved in either decision.
Originally Posted by Jacky S

1. Iran is only at 60% concentration of U-235. You need to be above 95% to get an Atomic Bomb like the ones the USA used in WW2 against Japan.

2. Even if Iran could enrich to 95%, they don't have the technology to put the bomb on a rocket right now.

3. Iran would not even be at 60% had Trump not backed out of the nuke deal Obama and 5 other countries had with Iran in 2018. A former weapons inspector for the international atomic energy agency backed Obama's nuke deal. It may not have been perfect, but it was preventing Iran from doing significant Uranium enrichment.

4. If a diplomacy solution won't work, only then should the USA bomb the Ferdow plant. Go for the tunnels and knock out the electrical system. The centrifuges can't be turned on. It's too deep to be totally destroyed.


https://inews.co.uk/news/world/nucle...bright-3669280

yes

Tucker Carlson doesn't seem to think so.

1. Iran is only at 60% concentration of U-235. You need to be above 95% to get an Atomic Bomb like the ones the USA used in WW2 against Japan.

2. Even if Iran could enrich to 95%, they don't have the technology to put the bomb on a rocket right now.

3. Iran would not even be at 60% had Trump not backed out of the nuke deal Obama and 5 other countries had with Iran in 2018. A former weapons inspector for the international atomic energy agency backed Obama's nuke deal. It may not have been perfect, but it was preventing Iran from doing significant Uranium enrichment.

4. If a diplomacy solution won't work, only then should the USA bomb the Ferdow plant. Go for the tunnels and knock out the electrical system. The centrifuges can't be turned on. It's too deep to be totally destroyed.


https://inews.co.uk/news/world/nucle...bright-3669280 Originally Posted by adav8s28

Nothing at all accurate in your message. Clicked on your link at the weapons inspector said 6 months Iran would have a nuclear bomb.


Obama's agreement was worthless as Iran was not following anything in the agreement.

I don't understand all of this false sense of security about the idea that countries like Iran and North Korea don't have the technology to build a rocket to deliver a nuke. DHL will deliver it in a shipping container anywhere you want....

.

Nothing at all accurate in your message.

Obama's agreement was worthless as Iran was not following anything in the agreement. Originally Posted by farmstud60

The 60% and 90% per cent numbers are accurate and come directly from Albright. Plus, Albright was an advisor for Obama's nuke deal. From the link:

Tensions continued to grow, however, until Barack Obama’s landmark deal with Iran in 2015. It was negotiated together with the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China, with Albright advising the US behind the scenes. He knew it wasn’t perfect, but Tehran had agreed to limit its nuclear programme to merely research and electricity generation, and allowed international inspectors to monitor compliance, in return for sanctions relief. It was a major breakthrough.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump “always hated the deal,” says Albright. Two years into his first term as President, he withdrew the US from the agreement and reimposed severe sanctions on Iran.

That led the Iranian regime to gradually increase uranium enrichment from the agreed 3.67 per cent level to more 60 per cent now, way beyond what’s needed for civil use. It would need to rise again to 90 per cent to produce material for a weapon, but Albright and others say that would not take long. It should have enough to make six bombs.

I did not make a statement about time. You have to enrich past 90% concentration of U-235 isotope to get a nuclear weapon. Again straight from Albright.

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/nucle...bright-3669280

adav8s28,


You just keep repeating the BS lies of Democrats and world leaders that think an agreement is all they need when in reality all it did was buy Iran more time to continue their efforts.


Trump will end the Iran Nuclear threat once and for all and quit listening to those that have gotten it wrong for 30 years.

All of this past history doesn’t mean shit.
The facts are that Iran is close to having enough fissionable material to assemble an atomic bomb, probably one similar to the Little Boy Bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Once you get enough of the U235 to combine enough to go criticle, the assembling of the device is not that complicated.

But as Rooster stated, they don’t need a missal. You could load the thing in a big truck and have a suicide bomber drive it right into the middle of TelAviv.

So the key is to keep them from getting enough fissionable U235.

It’s going to be up to the US to do it. If everybody is so appalled at this notion, just think about these religious fanatics holding the entire region hostage, or else.

If you are ok with Iran’s religious fanatics having the means to wipe out a city, then you just might get your wish if you rely on these stupid “negotiations” with these lying bastards.

You might say the same thing about Trump's threats.


He is supposed to be the USA president.


Instead, he is a threat machine. Recently threatened a rock singer and a governor.

No.

The same reasons being used to convince Americans to go after Iran were the same ones used to go after Iraq.

You'd think we would know better by now.

No.

The same reasons being used to convince Americans to go after Iran were the same ones used to go after Iraq.

You'd think we would know better by now. Originally Posted by texassapper

What about the Nukes, just let them have them?

What about the Nukes, just let them have them? Originally Posted by Jacky S

We have this representative body called Congress that is supposed to represent the will of the people. If Congress offers up a Declaration of War to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which may very likely be used to kill millions of Americans and it passes...well that how you deal with the nukes. If it doesn't pass then the will of the American people is that we take that risk.

Trump is not a fucking Emperor. We have citizen soldiers not Roman legions. We have a Republic and a method to make war if necessary.

We are in these situations in the first place because Congress has failed to do its job for decades

I don't understand all of this false sense of security about the idea that countries like Iran and North Korea don't have the technology to build a rocket to deliver a nuke. DHL will deliver it in a shipping container anywhere you want....

. Originally Posted by rooster

Albright thinks it would take Iran at least a year. The kind of rocket he is referring to is much larger than anything DHL could transport. Like the one on the top right of link.

From the link.

If Iran did go ahead in creating a nuclear weapon, it’s commonly accepted that its military still lacks the technology required to launch one on a missile, meaning its bomb would be of little practical use at first. Nevertheless, “it could be detonated underground, to signify Iran as a nuclear-weapons power”, says Albright.

That would be the ultimate warning to any opponents, especially as opinions differ on how long it might take for Iran to develop a missile capable of delivering a nuclear payload.

Albright thinks it might take a year, as “they have some serious challenges in front of them.” Yet he recently spoke with serving Western intelligence officers who believe it could be much quicker.


https://inews.co.uk/news/world/nucle...bright-3669280

adav8s28,


You just keep repeating the BS lies of Democrats and world leaders that think an agreement is all they need when in reality all it did was buy Iran more time to continue their efforts.


Trump will end the Iran Nuclear threat once and for all and quit listening to those that have gotten it wrong for 30 years. Originally Posted by farmstud60

If Iran was cheating on the Obama nuke deal as much as you are implying they would have enriched past 90% by now and have an atomic bomb.

Dems got it wrong for 30 years? Bush43 was president 25 years ago. Did Bush43 get right with the WMD's?

The only thing that Trump wants to do is make a better deal than Obama.