War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

[JMA]

or blowback (much less the possibility of their rebuilding sans occupation) and just looking at what it would take to do that and what would be accomplished or gained, have you done a cost benefit analysis?

Lets look at it this way.

What is the real risk if some Iranian nutcase gets to have access to nuclear devices?

[Ken White]

What is the real risk if some Iranian nutcase gets to have access to nuclear devices?

of a Pakistani, Russian, Israeli, British, French, US, Chinese or Indian nuke. Noting that all those nations also have nutcases and that a number of other nations are known to have the capability of developing their own nukes -- nations that also have nutcases in the population...

That answer of yours, BTW, is not a cost benefit analysis, far from it. But, then, you knew that.

If pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities take place what are the possible Iranian retaliatory actions?

What are these options and what would be the most likely to damage the US or Israel?

That's a very superficial start. Before you assess that, consider the attitudes of both US and Israeli voters; all the voters...

You may also wish to add an assessment of the probability of success of those strikes -- and consideration of world reaction -- to that. In addition to Iraniha retaliation, consider the effect on world oil trade to any brouhaha in the Gulf and concomitant economic impacts. Then go from there...

Its got to be a double whammy. Take these threat assets out at the same time as the nuke sites.

Likelihood of success? Don't forget that Iran is three times as large and almost as rugged as Afghanistan and that it has more than double the population...

Can the US, can Israel, can the world afford to have an itchy Iranian finger on a nuclear trigger?

The Mullahs are nuts but they aren't stupid. Thus on a world aspect, I'm not particularly concerned. For Israel, they can take care of their own interests.

My concern is US interests. We could possibly do what you suggest but I'm quite convinced the long term political fallout for us would be far from beneficial, I strongly doubt it would be in our interest to perform such an attack. That's not to say we would not, could not or will not depending on circumstances, merely that it's easy to suggest "The US must do something about this..." as so many who want something done they cannot do seem to wish -- then rant about how evil the US was / is for doing it. Easy to ask someone else to do a job but the guy who does it has a responsibility for the job, all ancillaries and effects thereunto pertaining and ideally he consider those factors in great detail before applying a knee jerk reaction. Particularly someone else's knee jerk...

In any event, I'm inclined to be more worried about the prognosis for Africa than I am about Iranian nukes. Nutcase obtains and pops one, doing some damage somewhere in the west and Iran becomes a parking lot. Khameini and his successor aren't dumb. The Iranis were being devious and scheming in palaces while our ancestors were chasing wild pigs in the forests of Europe. Iranian nukes are more than likely and will be no big thing. Neither will those of the Saudis, the Turks or Brazilians.

[JMA]

of a Pakistani, Russian, Israeli, British, French, US, Chinese or Indian nuke. Noting that all those nations also have nutcases and that a number of other nations are known to have the capability of developing their own nukes -- nations that also have nutcases in the population...

OK then let me rephrase that to read... no more nut cases!

There is some progress in the direction of nuclear disarmament but there is still a long way to go. So I say again no more nuclear powers.

That answer of yours, BTW, is not a cost benefit analysis, far from it. But, then, you knew that.That's a very superficial start. Before you assess that, consider the attitudes of both US and Israeli voters; all the voters...

It has a cost benefit. To prevent the madmen in Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons at any cost.

You may also wish to add an assessment of the probability of success of those strikes -- and consideration of world reaction -- to that. In addition to Iraniha retaliation, consider the effect on world oil trade to any brouhaha in the Gulf and concomitant economic impacts. Then go from there... Likelihood of success? Don't forget that Iran is three times as large and almost as rugged as Afghanistan and that it has more than double the population...The Mullahs are nuts but they aren't stupid. Thus on a world aspect, I'm not particularly concerned. For Israel, they can take care of their own interests.

Well start to prepare the world for it, make contingency plans, get the mad Mullahs under pressure till they crack... then do the business.

Once the aim has been selected that (for starters) these two lunatic states are not going to be allowed to develop nuclear weapons then you do what you need to do to achieve that aim.

Then one day allow a free and fair election to be held in Iran. Nice byproduct that will be!

My concern is US interests. We could possibly do what you suggest but I'm quite convinced the long term political fallout for us would be far from beneficial, I strongly doubt it would be in our interest to perform such an attack. That's not to say we would not, could not or will not depending on circumstances, merely that it's easy to suggest "The US must do something about this..." as so many who want something done they cannot do seem to wish -- then rant about how evil the US was / is for doing it. Easy to ask someone else to do a job but the guy who does it has a responsibility for the job, all ancillaries and effects thereunto pertaining and ideally he consider those factors in great detail before applying a knee jerk reaction. Particularly someone else's knee jerk...

The long term risk of nuclear fallout should be more of a concern to you than the medium term political fallout I suggest.

Unlike Iraq the world will know why this was done and will at least privately be thankful. Surely you realise that if some lunatic starts to chuck nukes around the US in some shape or form will be on the receiving end?

In any event, I'm inclined to be more worried about the prognosis for Africa than I am about Iranian nukes. Nutcase obtains and pops one, doing some damage somewhere in the west and Iran becomes a parking lot. Khameini and his successor aren't dumb. The Iranis were being devious and scheming in palaces while our ancestors were chasing wild pigs in the forests of Europe. Iranian nukes are more than likely and will be no big thing. Neither will those of the Saudis, the Turks or Brazilians.

Not sure about that after seeing the response to the sinking of the (South) Korean warship. I see at least half the world screaming NEGOTIATE rather than retaliate. I'm not sure you need to drop a nuke on Iran. It is not the people who are the problem so why should they die?

If this is handled properly there will be no need to think about how to retaliate because there will be no first strike (because neither Iran nor North Korea will have a nuke to toss at anyone).