Will the United States use the military option over Iran over the nuclear issue? If so which ones?
455158
The full power over our Military was Given to King Bush and The Bush Bunch by Our Congress right after 911.When we attack another country now,it is not as the US, although it is mostly US military,it is King Bush and his Multi- National forces.The tragic part for us U.S. Citizens is the whole world thinks we are all behind this.The truth is many,many of us can see how awfully wrong all this is.The main fear is it will get much,much worse.
78496
Really doubt it, I think Israel with destroy any attempts of nuclear fission, as they did in Iraq.\nIf the discussions carry on the same way, then the US & EU will enforce sanctions, probably with the backing of Russia & China.\nIran may inflate the price of Oil, which could be an issue, as they're the 4th largest supplier in the World... & the US could go in to sieze the oil fields, as they did in Iraq.
536620
Yes if they keep on going the way they are. Iran will get the Bomb, With USA painted on the side of it.
532755
Probably, unless we want a mad man to build a nuclear bomb & blow up Israel - his wordes not mine or President Bush's words. Are you willing to sacrifice Israel & do you believe The President of Iran will stop with one country if no one stops him. The world will truly be his unless some stops him, as the greatest world power that falls to The United States. As a mother of a solidier it is not with pleasure that this is said. God bless our Military!
104588
It would take a coalition of countries and U.N. resolve plus resolutions, and getting Congress to approve.  Yes it is possible, however no one wants more war so a lot of diplomacy will be tried before it comes down to an actual war.  Is the U.S. able the answer to that is also a yes.  The U.S. is able to do most everything it sets it's mind to do.  I believe that there will be a settlement with Iran being willing to allow inspectors in to supervise the Nuclear Operations. If they intend this power only to make electricity from they should have no problem complying with that U.N. request.
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
373388
Tfhe US government does not want any new nations to have nuclear capabilities.  Especially ones that are agressive and terroristic.  I say this because the Iran Government has already stated that Isreal has no right to exist and needs to be eradicated.
513922
It won't be a war ... Iran is like twice almost three times as big as Iraq. But that is not the reason we will or won't go to war with Iran. The people of Iran are far more sophisticated about the modern world than Iraq was .. the people of Iran know far to well that a nuclear option with the west is an option that is one that they can not win. The nuclear option can not work for them .. the Israelis have the bomb ... India has the bomb .. Pakistan has the bomb ... nobody wants another bomb in the 'hood ! Israel will not let them have a bomb ... no question ... they just won't sit still for it ... they have taken them out before ... and the US will just let them do it ... It's a tough roll of the dice .. it's a hot piece of real estate in the world ... but I bet that's the way it plays out. Russia and China want the oil ... but I don't think they want to play the nuclear gambit ... yet ! Iran's gov't doesn't want to back down... that shows weakness ... but the people of Iran don't back the gov't. ... more people in Iran oppose the gov't. in place ... so we sit and wait and see if they can vote them out .. or if the military takes over the state !
1139430
They can and probably do.  I did not understand some of the answers above.  Something about Iran being more likely to use them????  If the US is less likely to use them.  Why do they need them in the first place?
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.
678053
Yes, the countdown has certainly begun.  This is a time of crises for the world.  I would hope that the used of nuclear weapons against Iran would be the last resort.  Because the first time nuclear weapons are to be used by any nation in an offensive measure, they must prepare to be counter attacked accordingly.  This could easily cause a chain reaction between countries and their allies sparking the Armageddon that we have feared sine the nuclear age has come alive.
458954
Iran has right to have the nulcear power if us, and other countries have. There is possibility of use of nuclear power against any country from the other countreis too.
610486
Israel would do this before the US. The US might encourage Israel to do it, but wouldn't actually pull the trigger.\n\n--------------\nTo your added comments:\n\nIsrael because they have been directly threatened by Iran. This would make it appear "justified". The US has no reason to attack Iran.\n\nI sort of agree with you on Iraq. The US definitely wants a military presence in that region. However, I think we'd prefer a friendly government in Iraq, with the only criteria for "friendly" being selling us cheap oil. Saddam met this criteria from the 1960's through the 1980's. That why we helped him gain power, and that's why we supported him throughout that period.
595556
The outcomes of such war would be pretty unsure, provided the US don't use chemical or nuclear weapons. The reason being that Iranians can be less equipped than the US but they are millions (millions of people in the Army i mean + those who would take a weapon should the US attack, exactly as it is happening in Iraq). \nDespite what many Americans or other people may think, Iranians are not stupid nor very much afraid of Americans. I think a war against Iran would end up exactly as the war in Iraq. Thay may fix Ahmadinejad but not all the clones coming out of there, turning the war into a permanent guerrilla, which in turn would cause a Vietnam-like situation. \nIt's what is happening in Afghanistan; it's what's happening in Iraq (And the US don't seem to envisage any tactics change) and it will also happen with Iran and Syria (Where Bush is planning to go immediately after Iran, as soon as he gets another valid excuse to gain some more oil fields). \nAnother point is: Are you all sure that EVEN IF, should the US win a war against Iran, causing millions of victims, that would be a victory in economic and diplomatic terms. No because what many out there didn't get yet is that in the world there are other countries too apart from the US and that means that certain actions are subject to the approvals of others too, at least because if you start a war next to my home country, i may have to handle refugees, terrorists etc. \nIn short, i think the outcomes of a war between US and Iran are very very far from seeing the Americans 100% winners. As a matter of fact they are not winning in Afghanistan nor in Iraq at the moment (It's a fact!).\n\nAnd mind me, all the above doesn't come from an antiamerican integralistic muslim, but rather from a Pro-America italian who has simply realized that the US are going a little bit too far in their so called "DEMOCRATIZATION" of middle east. And for those who may find my statements insulting, i'd suggest you all to wonder why the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia yet, since they are the root of the problem in that area...Will it be because Saudi Arabia produces 1/3 of all oil reserves in the world? Or because they enjoy a special relationship with the US? Or because they allow the US to keep their airforce bases over there (although not liking americans)?.....\nWinning a war is not simply killing the enemy and leaving the country. In these cases it's more about FIXING THE ONGOING ISSUES AND STABILIZING THE AREAS. \n\nThis would be best achieved with a President that is not Bush!A new Reagan would do as he had the brain it took and the balls to keep it real when situations get hard to handle, like in this case.
109426
Not going to happen. Europe and the US going to war with Iran is a possibility.
639892
The U.S. has not used a nuclear weapon at all, be it civililian or militarily, since Japan and the end of WWII, a MUCH different time than today.  I have heard claims, however, of people that believe the U.S. has freely, and openly been using "tactical nukes" in the Middle East.  This is not true.  What a lot of people are mentioning is known as depleted uranium.  While it's not exactly the greatest stuff on Earth, it is far from what some believe it is to be--a type of nuclear weapon.  It's actually used in many civilian applications as well.\n\nhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/\n\nAs far as the U.S. having weapons, it's known that we have decreased our arsenal, but at the same time, still have a large amount.  Is it possible that someone could get a hold of them?  Sure, I would suppose, but why bother the U.S. and the military that is surely guarding our stockpile when you could get it for a price just by asking in some parts of the world.  \n\nThe United States will forever maintain a nuclear arsenal for strategic purposes.  It is impossible to believe that if we took the lead and destryoed every one that we had, that the rest of the world would follow suit.  We'd be left unprotected, and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction--one of the main reasons the Cold War went the way it did--would be eliminated, leaving us naked and extremely vulnerable.  We maintain them anymore as defense, though I truly believe that in this political climate, we will never see the day that the U.S. fires an offensive nuclear attack...I think defensive may even be a stretch.  \n\nThe reason that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons is simple.  They have made their intentions known, and I truly believe that it is simply a matter of time before they place one on top of a missile and fire one into Israel, and one into Iraq (to wipeout any remaining U.S. and coalition forces).  While some believe that Iran is bluffing, and claim that they do not have the technology, I'll leave the bluffing to the poker players, and take the threat of a nuclear weapon coming out of Iran in the near future as a very serious one.
69348
I doubt the United States would declare a state of war with Iran- Iran has not attacked us (at least directly). If we fought a military action, I think it would be brief and simple, involving mostly naval and air forces to bomb and destroy Iranian nuclear reactors.\n\nI think the war would also be coalition-based, with UN and EU forces participating. After destroying the reactors, we would probably end the fighting.\n\nThis is similar to the 1981 bombings of that Iraqi nuclear plant by the IDF-AF (Israeli Defense Forces/Air Force). Except this time, we'll be fighting with a coalition.\n\nI am not sure if Israel should participate in this war. Like the 1991 Gulf War, it could ignite anti-Israel and anti-Semitic feelings in the middle East and spark a huge war.