[Mr Apple]

Unum correctly states:
A bunker-buster might not be able to take out their nuclear-enrichment facilities, but a nuke could.

E. Pluribus Unum, Jewbacca; GOP J, and KC Lion, I'd like to have your thoughts on my posts #27 and #29 from the article below if you have a moment please:

"John Bolton Confirms: Israel Is Alone"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2926110/posts?page=24

[KC_Lion]

In a Nuclear Exchange No one wins, which is why preventing the Iranians from having one is so crucial.

The Stuxnet virus is just one of many ways the Israeli's are trying to prevent this.

You also have to take into account the supply of the Iranian Nuclear site, if Israel does decide to strike it could cut the arteries or hit the facility in such a way the prevents anything from leaving/entering.

One does not need to destroy the facilities per say, simply prevent their use.

[Jewbacca]

Well, I don’t know.

I do know Iran is on the bleeding edge of Israeli range, making an “all-in” conventional attack difficult.

I would suggest a long, drawn-out, many tiered attack (months of cruise missles) before a nuclear attack, although I, too, am afraid a nuke attack may be the only possible method because I suspect Obama would order interception of Israeli craft.