Would a US surgical strike on Iran's nuke facility be viable now?
407923
great idea if the US wants to set off world war 3
81868
Between those two, a preemptive strike would be best. We want to hit them BEFORE they have nukes, not after. But personally if I were running things I would warn them and then launch air strikes and special forces actions all across Iran's military bases. Hopefully we would cripple their nuclear programs and their military, and they would back down.\n\nIf not I'd want the EU to get my back, I'm tired of fighting alone. And I wouldn't topple the government--the last thing we need is another Iraq. THe best thing we can do is teach them a lesson, and make them back down.
706670
They need something over there to be bombed.  I think a few cruise missiles are in order simply to wake up ahmadinejad and scare the sheet out of him.  There must be some actions and repercussions for what they are doing.  If there aren't, why would they ever stop?  It needs to be done now BEFORE they have a nuclear arsenal.  Same goes for north korea.
145192
Prepare yourself for the unthinkable: war against Iran may be a necessity. Will it be doomsday. i think not, unless Iran becomes a nuclear power.\n\nTHE UNIMAGINABLE but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran.  Confronted with nightmarish perils we instinctively choose to seize the opportunity to blame Bush and the right, cursing our domestic opponents for the situation they’ve put us in. \n\nThe rapidly intensifying crisis with regard to Iran exemplifies the phenomenon. \n\n While we were chasing phantom nuclear weapons in Mesopotamia, next door Iran was busy building real ones. Now we are enfeebled, militarily and politically, our diplomatic tools blunted beyond repair by the errors in Iraq. \n\n All that matters now is what we do. \n\nThe unavoidable reality is that we now need urgently to steel ourselves to the ugly probability that diplomacy will not now suffice: one or way or another, unconscionable acts of war may now be unavoidable. \n\nThose who say war is unthinkable are right. In the nuclear age, no one wins.  Military strikes, even limited, targeted and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world.\n\nA war, even a limited one, will almost certainly raise oil prices to recession-inducing levels, as Iran cuts itself off from global markets. The loss of Iranian supply and the already stretched nature of production in the Arab world and elsewhere means prices of $150 per barrel are easily imaginable. Military strikes will foster more violence in the Middle East, strengthen the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, fuel anti-Western sentiment among Muslims everywhere and encourage more terrorism against us at home. \n\nAll true. All fearfully powerful arguments against the use of the military option. But multiplied together, squared, and then cubed, the weight of these arguments does not come close to matching the case for us to stop, by whatever means may be necessary, Iran from becoming a nuclear power. \n\nThe refusal of the current Iranian leadership to accept the Holocaust as historical fact is simply a recognition of their own plans to redefine the notion as soon as they get a chance (“Now this is what we call a holocaust”). But this threat is only, incredibly, a relatively small part of the problem. \n\nIf Iran goes nuclear, it will demonstrate conclusively that even the world’s greatest superpower, unrivalled militarily, under a leadership of proven willingness to take bold military steps, could not stop a country as destabilising as Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions. \n\nSomething short of military action may yet prevail on Iran. Perhaps sanctions will turn their leadership from its doomsday ambitions. Perhaps Russia can somehow be persuaded to give them an incentive to think again, perhaps people will let by gones be by gones and live happily ever after. But we can’t count on this optimistic scenario now. And so we must ready ourselves for what may be the unthinkable necessity.
37752
I think through time, moving to the Euro is a possibility. It may be an ego blow to red blooded Americans, but not particularly damaging to the economy.\n\nWith regard to invade, I not sure that is a practical necessity, more likely they will attempt to destroy facilities perceived to be active in nuclear work, while applying external pressure through sanctions.
164238
The U.S.A. alone will not be attacking anyone, however a coalition of forces may have to depending upon Iran Nuclear Policy.  Iran's President is playing the same game with us that Saddam played with us for years, this time with other factions coming to a head in the same area I don't believe that anyone will put up with this for nearly as long.  The U.S.A. has had Nuclear Power for longer than anyone has, we know the responsibilites that come along with it, which is why it has only been used in one war.  Our Arsenal of Nuclear Weapons has been used as a deterant to others who have this power, to keep a balance.  No one wants to see Nuclear weapons used in a war again and a government of 27 years with shaky background as far as stability is concerned is not the country that anybody wants to see develope this power.  Read the Book "On the Beach" or even see the movie they are both old, but they  will give you an understanding of what we figured out after gaining Nuclear Power and how long we have known it.  This power can wipe entire nations off the face of the Earth in nothing flat, as desirable as that may sound to somebody hating another nation may be, in doing so many other innocent would have lives altered from fallout for many years afterward.\n\nNuclear Power should not be approached lightly by anyone it can change the world by the push of a button.  Quite simply the U.S. has enough Nuclear Powered Warheads on submarines around the world to answer any Nuclear attack immediately  anywhere in the world.  The people of our country that handle this type of weapons are the professionals at the highest levels.  I pray that they never have to do their jobs.
68592
I think that this question is totally irrelevant. If Iran( or any muslim nation against USA)  builds nuclear facilities (civilian or military) americans will destroy that country (only becoz they c them as a threat).\n\nI think that america's common sense has been permanantly crippled by bin laden. Post 911 America views the whole world suspiciously (except their slaves in UK and friends in Israel). America has ever since been contradicting themselves. Remember the war in iraq, it was fought bcoz bush claimed to have evidence of non existent weapons and the threat of a dictator.My question to the world is "If iraq , y not pakistan?". Mushy's a dictator and one who openly admits to having nuclear weapons.\n\nI predict that soon the patience of the international community will run out. A grand alliance (Russia, China , France , India and the Arab world) could be formed so that america and americans will exist only in history textbooks.
40027
The answer in one word:\nNO!!!!\n\nThe answer in many words:\nHELL NO!!! Because the number of troops for the military are streched so thin, its unblievable!! The US will not attack North Korea, because they have been spending too much time on Iran. And they can't do anything about Iran, because Iran has the backing of Russia, China, and India on the political front and the Hamas who is now in control of Palestine along  with the hezbolla militants will start hundreds of terror attacks. Now in Iraq, the Shi'ie muslim party is in power and they will soon become a major allie of Iran and so the US will be even more busy in Iraq. Iran will not be like Iraq that was invaded in a week, it won't be invaded, and hence we will have another Vietnam on our hands. And lastly , If the US even makes a threat to attack Iran, the oil supply from the second largest distributor of oil in the world will be cut off and hence the already high oil prices will triple, causing mayham!!! Does that answer your question? If it does, vote mine as the best answer so I can get 10 points.
402537
I do not think US is financially capable of such an exercise. Also they will be short of manpower with Iraq and Afghanistan under their belts. But if there is a long term strategic goal to be achieved, US might take this step using nuke as a ruse. If US goes on doing things like this people will one day call them Untrustworthy State with Arms!!!
367237
It will be a deep impact for USA. The united states will go to boggy!\nNo I don't mean that Iran is a powerful state. USA is very powerful and USa can beat Iran however, a war eating of the source of  a country. And many people in the world will hate USA. It is not good for American people:(
272914
Unlike North Korea (who seems to use their nuclear sabre-rattling every decade or so to extort financial aid from the UN) I am convinced that a nuclear-armed Iran would most certainly detonate a payload somewhere. A move against Israel is very believeable. Iran has shown an attitude of support for islamo-fascist terrorism also. It is not inconceivable for an Iranian produced nuke to end up in a suitcase in say, Times Square.\n\nIf you are a rational citizen of the world and you are not concerned about this issue, you are either very dumb or asleep.
160752
It is possible. After all they share the region with Israel which has developed a nuclear arsenal, hasn't signed the NPT and has attacked arab states not so long ago. A potential nuclear threat demands to be counterbalanced. Pakistan and India did so, when Pakistan developed nukes India followed suit immediately. There's also the US threat which has led to the occupation of two arab states: Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter was a former Iran ally against Israel.\nOn the other hand, Iran needs nuclear power. Oil reserves won't last forever and the nuclear technology needs time to mature and gradually take over the role of main power supply. This is also good policy because it allows for increased exports (theoretically) and thus make more countries depended on Iran oil (thus increase political influence without military support), given that most countries suffer from oposition to nuclear power.\nFact is: Iran has the right to develop and research nuclear energy under the NPT. Fact is: the USA hasn't provided any proof to sustain allegations that Iran's program is military. They only said that Iran -could- break the NPT, but any country that has an enrichment facility could (that includes UK and US) and this is no grounds to deny  nuclear power (it's sheer hypocrisy since it comes from a country that holds thousands of nukes ready to launch). There are other countries more 'dangeous'. Romania has a nuclear plant, it has an enrichment facility, a research facility with some world-renown nuclear physicists and even more, it has two uranium mines. They have a better chance at building nukes than Iran does, because Iran is mostly importing uranium. Basically, until US brings evidence that Iran is breaking the NPT, USA legally can't and shouldn't do anything. Then again the legality of a course of action never bothered the US.
759212
I think it would depend on the circumstances. Undoubtedly, some Americans would fight , no matter what the intentions of the invaders. \n\nIf we had been suffering under an abusive, oppressive, dictatorial regime, and the Iranians offered some measure of freedom, I think they would win popular support among Americans.\n\nIf they invaded now, with things as they are, they would face tremendous opposition. We have a pretty good system now, and what the Iranians have to offer doesn't even come close.\n\nI know the point you are trying to make here, but I think you are seeing a false equivalence between U.S. democracy and Baathist rule of Iraq. Our system, whatever it's flaws, at least has a fundamental respect for the rights of the individual. Hussein's system did not. Our system is open to popular influence...his certainly was not. You can't hypothetically "turn things around" without acknowledging this.
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.
1128071
US doves, led by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have won the argument in Washington to lead the US in direct talks with Iran, which will agree on a package under which to end its enrichment of uranium. \n\nIn exchange, it will receive a bag of goodies that will include help with civil nuclear power (including a nuclear power station and the fuel to go with it) and trade concessions. \n\nUS hawks in Washington have gone along with the move in the belief that an offer of direct talks now will improve their arguments for military action later. It also helps to keep Russia and China on board. \n\nThe hawks think this initiative will lead nowhere because Iran will not negotiate seriously even if it agrees to talks - and when it all breaks down, they will have been shown to have gone the extra mile. \n\nThey would then press for a mandatory Security Council resolution ordering Iran to suspend enrichment and then, if Russia and China blocked sanctions, they would call for unilateral measures by the US and its allies. \n\nIf that failed, then eventually there would be discussion of a military strike. \n\nStay tuned folks!
385099
We do not consider the proliferation of nuclear technology for WMD's progress.  When Iran is sitting on one of the largest known oil reserves on Earth the idea she would spend enormous resources to build nuclear power plants is not credible.  \n\nYour President's threats to destroy Israel don't reassure us that your intentions are peaceful. For me your comment that God only shines in Iran suggests your religion and/or culture is superior to mine.  Persons who believe their God only shines on them can use that to justify bad things.    \n\nProgress can take place in many areas that don't threaten the existence of life on our planet. Americans and the world would rejoice if an Iranian found a cure for cancer,  or even the common cold, and we would all hold you in our hearts forever. \n\nIt is not Iranian progress we are concerned about, it is survival
560993
IRAN IS A PANDORAS BOX... WAR ON IRAN WOULD BE LIKE OPENING IT AGAIN... ATTACK ON IRAN WOULD DESTABILIZE THE WHOLE REGION... SANCTIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT... SO A THIRD OPTION IS REQUIRED....