is There any Chance that US airforce Nuke iran nukelair Facilities ????
449769
A pretty good chance as long as madman Bush is in the Whitehouse.
1037766
~Should Iran teach the US a lesson by taking out just one of their facilities?  this should stop them.\n\nGeorgie the Younger loves fools like you.
606651
I have no doubt that the USAA could easily defeat the Iranian Army and Air Force, though they would be harder to defeat than Iraq's.  A long war would cause considerable damage to Iran--at the very least all electrical generating stations would be bombed, you wouldn't be able to use your computer after the first day or two; and there would be no water supply as a result.  Having said all that, most Americans are probably against the war because we're already having enough trouble in Iraq trying to win the peace. \n\nKeep in mind that just because you have an atomic bomb doesn't mean you can actually deliver it anywhere.  If there were a war, any Iranian plane or missile trying to leave Iran would be noted and blasted out of the sky.  And I doubt Iran would try to use the Bomb inside its own country.  And if Iran did manage to drop the Bomb somewhere, it would give the US good reason for appropriate revenge on Iran.  Are you sure you want that?
1139447
Nah possibility of a nuclear war with nations is slim but if a terrorist group were to get their hands on a nuke weapon then all bets are off. That's why Iran nuke program must be verifiable before they are allowed to have one - they sponsor terrorism (hezbollah, hamas, etc)
612648
Again, there's no point in even addressing what political issues you're implying, because it's a fact that Iran can not and will not set off a nuke here.  That would be considered an act of nuclear war, and we would retaliate with an unbelievable amount of nuclear firepower, which would squash Iran like a tiny bug under a giant boot.  You don't really want to enrage 300 million patriots backed by a trillion-dollar, apocalypse-bringing nuclear arsenal do you?
637318
they ain't gonna. u.s. is hypocrits. they worry about iran while we are sitting on our tons and tons of nuclear arsenal.
172918
No where, if US or UN or any pfficial organizations could find such things Iran was scene of war today.\nIran claim to doing its nuclear program for peace is totally true, problem rise from the fact that if Iran be able to do full enrichment cycle it can be used for a nuke.\nIt is also known that CIA during Clinton has given Iran blueprints for making a nuke(For God knows reason)\nIranians insist on doing it, they have many reasons, one of them is western countries have refused to give Iran enriched Uranium even when they sign contracts to do so.
856738
I've been saying this for months. I've told EVERYBODY that after the elections, the U.S., Great Britain, and/or Israel WILL strike Iran.\n\nThink about it...  . . .We're not about to let them get NUCLEAR BOMBS.
638789
now .. haven't you opened a can of worms ?!?!?!?\nit is a tough one, mainly because NO ONE can say whether or not there's actually a military (bomb-making) aspect to the "nuclear ambition". \nConstruction of the nuclear power plants in Iran started many years ago, long before the mullahs came to power ... so it's not as if this is something new that the current regime has suddenly come up with. In that sense, and since there is no "proof" of any malicious ;) activity, I personally don't see why not complete power plants on which millions and millions have been spent already. But then again : is there an atomic bomb hiding behind the facade? I don't know ... you don't know ... Bush doesn't know ... the IAEA doesn't know. To be fair, I would say all "countries" are "innocent" unless PROVEN otherwise.
754924
Let me help.  I received this info this morning: \n\n"TEHRAN, Iran — Iran has said it would offer cash incentives to travel agencies to encourage Western tourists to visit the country, giving a premium for Americans, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported Tuesday.\nThe proposal is Iran's latest bid to reach out to ordinary Americans in an attempt by the Islamic Republic's political leadership to show that its quarrel is with the U.S. administration — not U.S. citizens.\n\nIt came as the United Nations Security Council deliberates a draft resolution that would impose sanctions on Iran for its disputed nuclear program.\n\n"Iran's tourism department will pay $20 per person to those who attract European or American tourists to the country," the agency quoted Mohammed Sharif Malakzadeh, deputy head of the department, as saying.\n\nVisitors from other countries would earn travel agents $10 a tourist, Malakzadeh said."\n\nIf you could persuade your travel agent to split this powerful financial incentive with you, I'm sure that it would go a long way to helping pay for the trip!
693957
Not only that. The same sequence of warnings could happen for Iran also. These things happen as long as there is ground to believe US (and other nations of the nuclear club) are not fair in their demands when they themselves indulge in nuclear weapons. Something like saying "I am a thief and will steal whatever I can. But anything you steal is a crime and so don't do it"
870871
Despite the Anti-American rhetoric from Iran, it doesn't really want to have any major confrontation with the US, especially on a head-to-head basis, as militarily it is far weaker than the US.\n\nIn addition, the US has no real desire at present to send troops into Iran either (it's bad enough fighting battles in both Afghanistan and Iraq without fighting Iran also, since the best combat divisions are already tied up).\n\nIran is well aware that "attacking the US" would provoke a swift and powerful military response in the form of bombings and ship-launched missiles against strategic military targets in Iran, in order to prevent further Iranian attacks. The US would also ensure that Iranian nuclear facilities were well "bombed".\n\nThere would be no need for troops on the ground as the US wouldn't be seeking to invade, merely to punish.\n\nIn some ways an attack on a US ship by Iran would give the US an excuse to attack Iran and halt any nuclear intentions it had for the foreseeable future. \n\nHowever, Iran is not a "helpless kitten".\n\nWhen the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger plane, believing it to be a hostile jet, Iran vowed revenge - whatever it took.\n\nLess that 6th months later Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie killing all 270 people on board + 11 townsfolk who were subsequently hit by the falling debris.\n\nAlthough Colonel Gadaffi, who the the favorite whipping boy of the US was blamed, many intelligence agencies outside the US blamed Iran for funding the terrorists and proving the detonators.\n\nThe timing device used on the bomb was found to be similar to a batch sold to Iran 3 months earlier. 3 weeks before the bombing, West German police successful arrested several Arab terrorists who were plotting "to blow up a US plane". Two of the terrorists (now serving 20 years each in a German prison) admitted that Irananian Intelligence had supplied them with money, training and detonators.\n\nSo perhaps the real question is whether the US will cause a confrontation, either deliberably or accidentally with Iran, and how Iran, rather than the US, will react. \n\nMy guess would be a 6 or 7 suicide bombers in Times Square, Wall Street, near the Whitehouse, etc. There is a hell of a lot of "wannabe martyrs" in Iran, but they lack both the training and the funding. Iran can provide both.
670545
America’s Options Against Iran. Iran’s nuclear program is a matter of concern. The real question, of course, is “what can the United States do about it?”\n\nThe options are negotiate, launch aerial attacks to take out the nuclear program, or to enact regime change through one means or another. Negotiation is not exactly an option – Iran has pretty much ruled out any deal that would limit its nuclear weapons program. There is also the fact that the Israelis will not patiently sit by while the Iranians use negotiations to buy time to continue their nuclear weapons development. These two factors leave only the option of stopping the program through air attacks or regime change.\n\nAir attacks have huge problems. Iran has a widely-dispersed nuclear program. There are at least 23 cities (plus uranium mines) in this program. However, targeting does not just involve the nuclear program. Iran also has a huge missile program. There are 40 cities or islands involved with Iran’s missile program, which also would need to be hit – so as to limit or preferably eliminate delivery options for the Iranians. This means at least 63 sites have to be hit in order to guarantee a major disruption to the Iranian nuclear program and its delivery system.\n\nThe type of air attack involved would probably be on the order of the first day of the 1991 Gulf War, in which a devastating air attack was launched over a month’s time. Even that devastating attack was not enough to prevent Saddam Hussein from launching missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War. In 2003, special operations forces were able to prevent a large number of launches, but their use is a huge step forward. Iran has some modern planes (particularly the MiG-29 Fulcrum), but the majority of their aircraft are old F-14As, F-4 Phantoms, J-7 Fishbeds, and F-5E Tigers. An air campaign would be able to hit the sites, and degrade the program. Iranian response would unpredictable, though.\n\nThe best option to guarantee a halt to Iran’s nuclear weapons program is to overthrow the imams. There are two ways this can be done; sponsoring the domestic opposition (which has significant popular support), or through an invasion. The former option has worked in the past. In the 1980s, the CIA was able to keep the Polish Solidarity movement functioning as an opposition movement despite martial law and opposition by the Polish and Russian secret police. That said, the effort took eight years, and the CIA back then was run by William Casey. Today’s CIA has become more of a bureaucracy, and much more risk-averse. The other problem with such an effort is that the situation in Iran is markedly different in two respects: Poland did not have a lengthy history of sponsoring terrorist attacks, nor was that country trying to develop nuclear weapons.\n\nThe other option is an invasion. This is probably the touchiest option. Currently, Iraq involves 17 American  brigades and three division headquarters. Afghanistan involves another division headquarters and three brigades. The 2nd Infantry Division is pretty much committed to defending the Republic of Korea. Two more divisions are carrying out peacekeeping in various parts of the world (the Sinai, Kosovo, and Bosnia being major deployments on that front). This is seven out of 24 divisions available (12 active, 8 National Guard, 3 active Marine, one reserve Marine). The Army is arguably stretched thin, since some divisions will have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. Until the situation in Iraq stabilizes or additional divisions are formed up, that will remain the case. Iraq has become an insurgency, and those take time (usually five to ten years). Iran would, in all likelihood, develop a similar insurgency. That will further tie down American forces in the region.\n\nThe options against Iran are limited, in large part due to the “peace dividend” of the 1990s, in which eight active-duty and four National Guard divisions were dis
322683
If told that some countries had nuclear weapons you would barely even bat an eyelash as you know that the country would use that technology for defence purposes only, such as Canada.  Other countries with this ability would make you sweat blood.  Giving Iran nuke ability is like putting a madman in a crowded shopping mall with a machine gun.\n\nIran is now testing very advanced missiles that have nuke capabilities........you better be bothered.
1116836
In reference to another post there is no working star wars program in place, we are just as vulnerable to a missile attack today as we were fifty years ago, now the likelihood of a large scale nuclear attack is much much lower without the soviets runnin around, though it is always possible that by some computer error that a launch will take place from either us or the russian silos, afterwards if we don't convince each other that it was a mistake it would probably lead to a full scale nuclear exchange, now that covers the U.S. and Russia, but don't forget the other nuclear nations out there such as Pakistan and India which are pretty much where the U.S. and Soviets were twenty years ago, so on that side of the planet I would say within the next two years that there is a 20% possibility of a nuclear exchange barring any massive change in policy or major event such as some sort of military incident betweent those two countries. It is possible that there could be a nuclear device smuggled and detonated in the U.S. by some terrorist organisation but that would not lead to a nuclear war, unless the perpetrators of such an attack posessed a nuclear arsenal. Let me just say that with today's great technology a nuclear device does not have to be any bigger than a briefcase and with lax border control and nearly unlimited funding for terrorist organisations in addition to lack of intelligence on nuclear material around the world it is very possible that some terrorist organisation may suceed in detonating a device on American soil. Let's all hope that never happens
779771
Nice ideal, but absolutely impossible. If I was an Iranian Leader, I wouldn't even think about it until I saw several American leaders convicted & successfully impeached. He is well aware our leaders speak with forked tongues.\n\nBy the way, what about this alleged nuclear weapons development? Is it any more real than what was in Iraq? It's the same people saying it, folks. Think. They were never found in Iraq because they never existed. You can hide a bomb, or several bombs, where they are difficult to find. Not true for the facilities that make them. Iran has a facility to enrich uranium for power plants.But nothing has been found suggesting bomb grade uranium, or the facilities to make it. And they are under constant inspection. think.
1053417
Wont be the Iranians, it'll be terrorists who get or steal it from Iran. \n\nDepends on what group and the size of the weapon. Hopefully it's DC but we wouldn't be that lucky.  New York, LA, Houston and Chicago would be prime targets.  New York and Chicago offer very dense population areas. A downtown nuke in either could kill hundreds of thousands. \n\nLA and Houston are very spread out. So it'd take more nukes or a much bigger nuke. They however offer very tempting targets such as Hollywood in LA and the Oil refineries, Bush sr's hometown, NASA in Houston. In any coastal city it's possible a nuke could trigger a tsuami as well. This means that folks in other continents might die from the terrorist blast. Something the terrorists would like celibrate all the more but likely would not even consider.  \n\nSecondary effects would be the destruction of fishuaries around the target. In the case of Houston much of the Gulf of Mexico which would heavily damage or destroy shrimping for both US and Mexico. Same with LA. East coast it'd prob damage half the fishing in the East coast. Then there is the fallout which would touch much of the world including the Middle East. Who of course would somehow blame the US for it. That assumes that the US does not retaliate with nukes of thier own, an assumption I would not make if I were a terrorist. Isreal might nuke some Arabs as a pre-emptive strike though Tel Aviv would be more likely to be nuked than any American or European city. \n\nSo the realistic answer is who cares what city was nuked. The response would lead to other nukes being used and potentially the end of mankind. The Middle east would cease to be inhabitable, Europe and Africa not far from it. Asia possibly and the entire world would suffer even from a very limited nuclear exchange. So if the goal of the terrorists was to exterminate the Arab race nuking a US, Isreali or European city would be a very good way to go about it. The WTC sparked a deep simering anger in Americans. Isreal would not hesitate to launch pre-emptive strikes and even Europe might find millions of dead as incentive for a temporary lapse of reasoning.  Even if world Govs were able to react in a restrained mannor private citizens would have no difficulty getting nukes from sympathetic places and using them against Arab nations. The anger would be one no Gov could control. \n\nIn short it's best we don't ever find out by keeping Iran and other unstable inmature nations from ever getting nuclear weapons.