Trump Team Weighs Options, Including Airstrikes, to Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program

[u/200-inch-cock]

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/trump-iran-plan-nuclear-weapons-def26f1d

[u/biglyorbigleague]

I have to assume Israel is drawing up similar plans.

[u/seattlenostalgia → u/biglyorbigleague]

I'll get shit on for this, but it may not be a bad idea. Air striking Iranian nuclear capabilities would be a short term geopolitical headache but future generations everywhere would thank us for it.

Imagine if we had done the same in North Korea. Now that they have nukes they're basically a thorn in everyone's side forever, and there's no way to get rid of them or even meaningfully pressure them to do anything.

[u/Bunny_Stats → u/seattlenostalgia]

But how does bombing a facility today solve the problem "for future generations?" Their nuclear enrichment facilities are deep underground, the Iranians have been preparing for US airstrikes on their enrichment sites for over 20 years. You can bomb the entrances and exits, which would slow production, but then what? Do you just keep bombing the same entrances and exits every month forever? Do you think bombing them indefinitely makes it more or less likely that Iran hardens its attitude and feels it needs nukes to defend itself?

This is not a problem that can be solved by bombing. You either need to negotiate with the regime so that they feel sufficiently safe that they don't need nukes, or else you need to go for a full ground invasion, which would be on a massively larger scale than either Iraq war. There is no easy middle-ground.

[u/Airedale260 → u/Bunny_Stats]

Because Iran clearly doesn’t give a shit about deterrence; they’re a massive geopolitical headache that has already used weapons to try and murder noncombatants, simply because they exist.

And yes, you can absolutely post-hole the shit out of it, or launch some kind of short-term raid (similar to what the U.S. did with Osama) and get back out. Wrecking everything Iran’s worked for over the past, what, 10-15 years or so is one HELL of a message, and if they try anything else, then bombing the shit out of Kharg Island until Iran collapses is doable.

Negotiation won’t work; between mutual distrust and the shit Iran has pulled over the years (decades) with us and our allies means there is no way to come to a solution both sides can live with.

*-Kharg Island is a location off the coast in the Gulf which carries about 90% of Iran’s oil to the world market. Taking it out would completely wreck Iran’s economy, and if it’s done on top of hitting their nuclear sites? It won’t be overnight, but the regime will be toast.

[u/Ind132 → u/Airedale260]

(similar to what the U.S. did with Osama)

How about "similar to what the US tried in Iran during the 'hostage crisis' "?

Because Iran today is more like Iran then, as opposed to Pakistan.

[u/Bunny_Stats → u/Airedale260]

And yes, you can absolutely post-hole the shit out of it, or launch some kind of short-term raid (similar to what the U.S. did with Osama) and get back out.

You watch too many movies my friend. Slipping in a couple of helicopters to take on a terrorist with a couple of bodyguards and no state support is in no way comparable to entering the heavily fortified military bases under which the enrichment facilities are built. No offence, but this isn't a feasible option. It's like suggesting North Korea could "raid" Fort Knox.

[u/Airedale260 → u/Bunny_Stats]

You misunderstand a couple of key points. My argument isn’t that it would be easy, but rather that it’s not either “massive invasion and occupation” or nothing; you can do the “objective raid/invasion” bit and then get back out without an occupation.

It would still be a big challenge, since it would likely require something along the lines of multiple carrier groups, amphibious assault ships, the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, the entire Ranger regiment, and detachments from special forces backed up by a metric fuckton of airpower, but unlike the North Koreans (or anyone else), the U.S. has the logistical capability to actually pull such an operation off, since we have a global reach.

It wouldn’t be easy, but it’s certainly possible for the U.S. to pull it off. More so if certain allies in the region (some combination of Kuwait, the UAE, the Saudis, etc) allow us to stage out of their territory and/or allow us to use them as regrouping points.

[u/Bunny_Stats → u/Airedale260]

Keep in mind we aren't talking about a single facility here, we're talking about multiple enrichment sites across a half-dozen military bases that are spread throughout the interior of Iran. This would not be a small operation.

For comparison, it took six months to prepare the supplies necessary for the first Gulf War, which didn't step foot in Iraq and only focused on liberating Kuwait. While you could skimp and get away with fewer supplies in your limited-invasion plan, do you really want to risk having the entire 82nd and 101st divisions left in the middle of Iran without enough supplies to get them out? If not, you're going to need a pretty substantial build up above and beyond what's necessary to ensure you have the spare capacity to handle unexpected problems, like say an Iranian drone slipping through and hitting an ammo dump, and that takes time.

Meanwhile, Iran is two weeks away from building a nuke if they go all-out.

In a race as to who would be ready first, I would not be confident betting on the US.

[u/seeyaspacetimecowboy → u/Bunny_Stats]

I would not bet against the world's premier areal strike force that loves sitting around and wargaming every possible "how do we bring fury and fire precisely where we want it, when we want it" scenario with its titanic budget. Israel infiltrated and completely trashed Iran's capabilities from land bases in a restricted geographic origin.

The USAF can bomb Iran from Arkansas.

[u/Bunny_Stats → u/seeyaspacetimecowboy]

And that's precisely why Iran has spent the last 20 years making sure it's enrichment facilities are deep underground, safe from any airstrike.

[u/seeyaspacetimecowboy → u/Bunny_Stats]

safe from any airstrike.

Similar to ships safe from any icebergs.

[u/Bunny_Stats → u/seeyaspacetimecowboy]

Perhaps, maybe Iranians underestimated the potency of weaponry against them, but I'd be wary of assuming by default that the US can destroy an underground facility specifically designed to protect against an air attack.

[u/Baderkadonk → u/Airedale260]

Negotiation won’t work; between mutual distrust and the shit Iran has pulled over the years (decades) with us and our allies means there is no way to come to a solution both sides can live with.

Are we ignoring the deal Obama negotiated for Iran to cease nuclear development? Negotiations would have worked if Trump hadn't pulled out of the deal.

Maybe these countries end up being such a problem for us because the only "solution" people like you can come up with is: more bombs. Just keep attacking countries to "avoid war." Maybe they'll learn to love the United States if we just kill enough of them.

[u/Airedale260 → u/Baderkadonk]

I mean they took our diplomats hostage for over a year, then bombed a synagogue in 1994 because they hate Jews, and generally want to export their system of government to other countries (their particular take on Shi’a Islam is spreading it by force).

Then there’s the decades long support for Hamas and Hezbollah, including sponsoring attacks that killed hundreds of Americans. And the deal only tried to delay them getting a bomb, not give it up (read: kicking the can down the road until Obama was no longer in office)…amid public opposition from both sides of the aisle.

[u/Neglectful_Stranger → u/Baderkadonk]

Negotiations would have worked if Trump hadn't pulled out of the deal.

They really wouldn't, the deal was garbage.

[u/Darrackodrama → u/Airedale260]

What about the shit the us has pulled in Iran, backing the Shah? Stealing their Oil? Getting rid of a democratically elected leader? Negotiation won't work because we have always been the exploiter of iran. Now they want to negotiate despite this history and really for no good reason given our history and you all refuse just because "iran bad". Good luck starting a war with Iran and getting dragged into Iraq 5.0 for little to no gain.

[u/[deleted] → u/seattlenostalgia]

Aren’t most of them underground now?

[u/Positron311 → u/[deleted]]

Bunker busters are a thing

[u/Astrocoder → u/Positron311]

Conventional bunker busters wont get their sites. The only one that MIGHT is the 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb the US created. Iranian sites are buried deep in rock.

[u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI → u/Astrocoder]

You can also keep dropping them in the same spot.

[u/Bullet_Jesus → u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI]

Has that ever been tested? All I've read is that it could work in theory.

[u/Skeptical0ptimist → u/Bullet_Jesus]

I believe that IDF strike on Hezbollah headquarters which killed Nasralah was a dozen of bunker buster bombs dropped on the same coordinate repeatedly.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Skeptical0ptimist]

Yep, reportedly 2,000 lb bombs.

[u/MISSISSIPPIPPISSISSI → u/Bullet_Jesus]

Good question. There is always this baddie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP

[u/cathbadh → u/Astrocoder]

The Americans have the ability to repeatedly hit the same location, so they would work. Israel unfortunately doesn't have the resources to hit more than one or two sites a single time.

[u/tribblite → u/cathbadh]

And you don't have to destroy the bunker, you can also just mangle the tunnel and all the rock above it. I don't think it's that easy to build deep tunnels in gravel.

[u/Ginger_Anarchy → u/tribblite]

Also the psychological effects of the US showing they know exactly where the facilities are would probably cause them to panic and try to move facilities elsewhere, which takes a while.

[u/darito0123 → u/Astrocoder]

nah ur right, there is no way to "bunker bust" an actual mountain, there are ways to close off entrances for a time etc but its not something that can be sealed off forever with airstrikes

[u/DontCallMeMillenial → u/[deleted]]

EW surveillance can still find that easily.

[u/Jugaimo → u/seattlenostalgia]

I mean striking a nation’s nuclear missile sites is an outright act of war. I don’t think Iran will respond too kindly to such an attack.

[u/Big_Muffin42 → u/seattlenostalgia]

I like the idea in theory.

But I do worry about potential fallout. Or other side effects

Chernobyl had a radioactive cloud float into Germany. It nearly leaked into the water system which would have made Europe basically uninhabitable.

[u/CaptainDaddy7 → u/Big_Muffin42]

You got a source for that? I just googled it and couldn't find anything. 

[u/Big_Muffin42 → u/CaptainDaddy7]

Source for what? The risk of fall out? Or what happened with Chernobyl?

[u/CaptainDaddy7 → u/Big_Muffin42]

That it was close to making Europe uninhabitable

[u/Big_Muffin42 → u/CaptainDaddy7]

Sure. https://eudocs.net/stories/examining-the-chernobyl-disaster-in-depth-evaluation-and-research-studies/

Basically the efforts to reduce the damage were greatly successful. There still is contamination in the Black Sea, but not significant

The big risk was in the Dnieper river. If more (and certain) particulates had gotten into the supply larger regions around the Black Sea would have been uninhabitable or at great risk

[u/CaptainDaddy7 → u/Big_Muffin42]

Thanks, that was an interesting read, although I didn't see anything about how Europe was at risk of being uninhabitable. 

[u/Big_Muffin42 → u/CaptainDaddy7]

It’s rare to find an article that directly states it, as it is impossible to prove without a doubt. But there are articles, similar to what was linked that describe fallout being seen in water systems throughout Europe. It also is noted in many places that a large steam explosion through groundwater was avoided and that this would have caused even more significant fallout.

How much fallout in what places, it is impossible. It’s only speculation on worst possible scenario based on what we see now.

[u/PastAffect3271 → u/CaptainDaddy7]

Check out the book “midnight in Chernobyl” for specifics and sources but TLDR the immensely hot (2,000+ degrees Fahrenheit) lava-like mixture of graphite and fuel was burning through the floor of the reactor and threatening to mix with the cooling water reservoir, which would have theoretically caused a massive steam explosion and flung radiation across Eastern Europe even more that it was already doing. Separately, it was leaking into a major watershed, which would have leaked radiation into drinking water across Europe as well, essentially making all that water undrinkable and unusable for millions.

[u/TexasPeteEnthusiast → u/Big_Muffin42]

Destroying a nuclear weapon's site would not create the kind of radioactivity that Chernobyl produced, nor would it create the kind of fallout that successful detonation of a nuclear weapon would produce.

[u/Big_Muffin42 → u/TexasPeteEnthusiast]

I beg to differ.

It won’t detonate. But it could lead to a meltdown or any other kind of scenario where fallout happens

[u/Airedale260 → u/Big_Muffin42]

…that is not how things work. And Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, yet the Middle East wasn’t rendered uninhabitable.

[u/Big_Muffin42 → u/Airedale260]

When you hit a nuclear reactor you put great risk of things going wrong. The osirak reactor lacked the nuclear fuel as it was only partly operational at the time. We know Iran has been refining nuclear fuel. Apples to oranges situations

Did it cause a meltdown? No, but it could have if certain things were different.