[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

I don't really throw my hat into the ring very often on big issues like this, mostly due to my timid nature, but there's a first time for everything I guess. First, in response to the questions posed in the original post.

1) No, Iran doesn't need to be stopped. It seems highly unlikely that, should they develop nuclear weapons, they would begin handing them out like candy to various terror groups. Plus, Pakistan has nuclear weapons as well, and it's not like they're the most peaceful nation in the world.

Also, as Iran is a signee of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, this is relevant: However, the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market.

2) If the US or Israel did that, I couldn't see anything good resulting from it. I can't predict what Iran's response would be, though I imagine it would involve a reduction in oil and natural gas sales, nor could I fully imagine China's, though I also guess it would be something with an economic impact, and a big one at that. Russia would certainly be none too pleased, and would also reduce their shipments of raw materials, as well as crank up their rhetoric. I could also see them covertly helping the Iranian nuclear program.

3) Iran would resist fiercely. Yes, their conventional army would get beaten in a somewhat quick manner, a month, maybe two of conventional warfare. After that though, there would be an insurgency that would make Iraq look like a stroll in the park. This is one of the few things I'm sure about on the whole issue, but if there is an occupation it would be bloody.

4) Whether or not we're close to a World War depends entirely on the leaders of our nations and whether they use all available channels and options. I believe that, when it comes down to it, most of them are sane people willing to listen.

5) I don't see how a full civil war is different from what they have now.

And now, to reply to various posters.
RTB: So, you think Iran would be dangerous with nuclear power stations, as they've asserted time and again that's what they're after? I'm also interested in how we could "assert ourselves a bit more" than we are now, especially in a military confrontation with other powerful nations. Also, as a note, selling weapons to a country disliked by the US, as Purple proposed the EU should do, is not going to spark off a conflict. Otherwise we'd have invaded Russia long ago (and Putin would begin laughing the minute he heard it).

johnny: Your faith in the US judgment is... worrying. The answer is in our hands as it always is? Please. Is that the same good judgment that's led to things like Vietnam? I also take issue with your dismissal of Russia and China. Are you forgetting about their nuclear arsenals? Or, if we're going to keep this conventional, the fact that a fight on their home soil would not only be a boon to the Russian military, but a disaster for the US military?

Felix: Yeah, I've heard about these "seasoned active duty heavy brigade." Like administration units of the Oklahoma National Guard, that's one of the ones I've heard about. So, does your fantasy battle drill account for the Iranian military having commanders with conventional war experience, as well as very dedicated and high-morale soldiers. And where will these Coalition troops come from? The countries that contributed to Iraq are, in general, not too happy about that now, and a majority are of the opinion that attacking Iran would be a BAD idea. Love the optimism though. And as an aside, are you insinuating that the US Navy somehow destroyed the Kursk? Because if so... wow.

[ 02-11-2007, 04:13 AM: Message edited by: Man Who Fights Like Woman ]