Possible war with Iran

[AndrewL]

Then so is pakistan. What exactly are we doing about that?

But i disagree, there is no logical reason for iran to nuke israel.

This is all about the clash if civilizations and we should get them before they get us, period.

Iran and Arab countries have it in for Israel and the U.S.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/irannuclea...4899022807.html

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?171133

No. Iran is only interested in dominating the ME. They are not interested in blowing themselves up.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

I think the US should actually hep Iran develop a nuclear bomb, then we can get to the business, much quicker, of dealing with more important issues.

Yup, the whole world should have nukes. It would be a much safer place.

Why should the States have ANY say in Iranian affairs? The U.S. is coming off like the bully on the block. It's okay if they have nukes, just not anyone they disagree with. And don't forget the Americans are the only ones who have used them. They have no right in dictating who should develop a nuclear bomb.

Rights are not the issue. At the international level there are no such thing as rights. There are only nations with varying sizes of sticks and carrots.

The US can do whatever it wants, i just encourage them not to be as stupid as their recent record suggests they are.

Andrew

[Wilber]

No, you are wrong. Such analogies comparing the anarchy of of the international system and the law and order of a domestic system are false.

Andrew

I disagree. People are people. Escalation is escalation. When I was going to school and two guys had a beef, they went outside and settled it with fists. When one said uncle it was over. Now they often bring weapons and uncle is not enough. The fact that nations have nukes will not prevent them from engaging in conflicts. India and Pakistan never did stop having low level conflicts over Kashmir after they got nukes. The difference now is that there is also the possibility of a nuclear exchange. No sane government will want to use nukes but the first use of one by a country will probably be an act of desperation when a conventional war is going very badly. That war will probably not be between the US and Iran, or the US and anyone else.

[AndrewL]

No, you are wrong. Such analogies comparing the anarchy of of the international system and the law and order of a domestic system are false.

Andrew

I disagree. People are people. Escalation is escalation. When I was going to school and two guys had a beef, they went outside and settled it with fists. When one said uncle it was over. Now they often bring weapons and uncle is not enough. The fact that nations have nukes will not prevent them from engaging in conflicts. India and Pakistan never did stop having low level conflicts over Kashmir after they got nukes. The difference now is that there is also the possibility of a nuclear exchange. No sane government will want to use nukes but the first use of one by a country will probably be an act of desperation when a conventional war is going very badly. That war will probably not be between the US and Iran, or the US and anyone else.

Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant. The fact is there exists no institution that can carry out international justice. It is anarchy. Domestically we have laws that are enforceable and punishable, and it is effective.

Your schoolyard experiences can only go so far before the law gets involved to 'correct' the situation. At the international level no such thing exists with any effectiveness whatsoever.

As far as Pakistan and india go there has been no all out war, without the existence of nukes i think there would be.

By far the most likely government to use nukes in a first strike is the US. The US has stated explicitly in their defense review their right to a first strike against another non-nuclear nation. They are the only nation to make this threat public. The entire logic behind the missile defense program is to retain a nuclear first strike capability against Russia and China, or any other nation. They want the ability to make MAD non-applicable, as it was when they nuked japan. I support any and all efforts to make this goal impossible.

Andrew

[PolyNewbie]

Iran has its own national bank, just like Syria. They want to build the peace pipline. Thats why the USA is going to attack them.

They cannot build a nuke and deliver it to the states without the states knowing about it - that story is just to convince people that think George Bush is God that Iran needs to be attacked.

[Wilber]

By far the most likely government to use nukes in a first strike is the US. The US has stated explicitly in their defense review their right to a first strike against another non-nuclear nation. They are the only nation to make this threat public. The entire logic behind the missile defense program is to retain a nuclear first strike capability against Russia and China, or any other nation. They want the ability to make MAD non-applicable, as it was when they nuked japan. I support any and all efforts to make this goal impossible.

Disagree again. Any nation that has nuclear weapons will continually review it's options, including a first strike. Making that public is not a threat but a warning of what is possible when dealing with any country that possesses nuclear weapons and has the ability to deliver them. It is big stick diplomacy. The US is no more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other country and I still maintain that the first time one is used it will not involve the US unless they are the first victim.

[AndrewL]

By far the most likely government to use nukes in a first strike is the US. The US has stated explicitly in their defense review their right to a first strike against another non-nuclear nation. They are the only nation to make this threat public. The entire logic behind the missile defense program is to retain a nuclear first strike capability against Russia and China, or any other nation. They want the ability to make MAD non-applicable, as it was when they nuked japan. I support any and all efforts to make this goal impossible.

Disagree again. Any nation that has nuclear weapons will continually review it's options, including a first strike. Making that public is not a threat but a warning of what is possible when dealing with any country that possesses nuclear weapons and has the ability to deliver them. It is big stick diplomacy. The US is no more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other country and I still maintain that the first time one is used it will not involve the US unless they are the first victim.

So what are you disagreeing with? The US is still the only nation to make the threat public..... and given the lunacy that dominates american politics they are by far the most likely to carry through with it...

Andrew

[Wilber]

So what are you disagreeing with? The US is still the only nation to make the threat public..... and given the lunacy that dominates american politics they are by far the most likely to carry through with it...

And of course there is much less lunacy in Iranian politics.

[AndrewL]

So what are you disagreeing with? The US is still the only nation to make the threat public..... and given the lunacy that dominates american politics they are by far the most likely to carry through with it...

And of course there is much less lunacy in Iranian politics.

its a different kind of lunacy, but of course they are bunch of morons as well.

Thing is, Iran could not get away with a nuclear first strike, but the US could.

Andrew

[Mad_Michael]

Andrew

Greetings Andrew!

Perhaps I might lend a hand.

* * *

When it comes to the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons, I respectfully submit that there is no substantial increase in danger to world peace here. Indeed, if it is our general goal to maintain a relatively peaceful planet, then the development of nuclear weapons capability by Iran is not something that ought to be rationally feared.

1. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) has proven to be extremely effective in maintaining 'nuclear' peace amongst nuclear powered nations - as long as a relative balance is maintained. It is important to keep in mind the converse of this - that an imbalance of nuclear weapons capability is inherently a dangerous or unstable condition.

2. The long standing (and bloody) conflict between Pakistan and India has actually reduced and improved - only once nuclear weapons were balanced on both sides.

3. The NPT is actually a closed club of elite powers that is in itself, nothing more than a political monopoly, which is ultimately, destabilising. Given the subject of nuke weapons, instability is the absolute worst negative.

4. At present, there is a nuclear imbalance in the Middle East region caused by Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons. This is a major contributing factor to Middle East regional instability.

5. Ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian State has acted in every way as a rational state actor.

On this basis, I do not see the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology by Iran to pose a significant danger to world peace. Indeed, post-WW2 history suggests that Iran's eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons capability will, in all reasonable probability, act as a stabilising measure in the region. The Middle East is desperately in need of some major elements of stablity. Nuclear weapons parity in the Middle East is the most likely way to achieve some stability in this tormented region.

[Wilber]

Thing is, Iran could not get away with a nuclear first strike, but the US could.

They've had nukes for over sixty years, the Soviet Union has been gone for seventeen, so why haven't they? You forget that the US is a democracy who's government is accountable to the people. Most of these other places are not. The government you love to hate will be history in a year and a half by peacefull democratic means. These other guy's? You and MM seem to work on the philosophy that if the cops have guns, the town will be a safer place if the crooks have them to.

1. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) has proven to be extremely effective in maintaining 'nuclear' peace amongst nuclear powered nations - as long as a relative balance is maintained. It is important to keep in mind the converse of this - that an imbalance of nuclear weapons capability is inherently a dangerous or unstable condition.

Really, how many nuclear weapons have been used since there has been an imbalance? Your theory that more nukes are better and it doesn't matter who has them is downright scary.

[bush_cheney2004]

...By far the most likely government to use nukes in a first strike is the US. The US has stated explicitly in their defense review their right to a first strike against another non-nuclear nation. They are the only nation to make this threat public. The entire logic behind the missile defense program is to retain a nuclear first strike capability against Russia and China, or any other nation. They want the ability to make MAD non-applicable, as it was when they nuked japan. I support any and all efforts to make this goal impossible.

Nope.....France has recently made the exact same nuclear threat for mind games with Iran:

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/...rrent%20Affairs

The USA and FSU/Russia have always maintained a first strike nuclear option. It is neither new or remarkable.

[dlkenny]

I had the opportunity to speak with my Brother for about 15 minutes the other day. And he told me that they are drilling and preparing for possible scenarios involving Iran. For those of you who dont know he is currently deployed to Rawaa Iraq at this time.

I fear this more than anything in the world at this moment because Iran is NOT Iraq, I have no doubt of are ability to sweep away Irans military capability, are air superiority is just to great, those new F22 are incredible, but to take and hold Iran i believe would be catastrophic to the economy of the United States. I also believe the loss of American life in such a move would be just too much. I consider myself fiscally conservative, and socially liberal, Unless the Republican party comes up with a much more centrist candidate for president im considering voting democrat in the next election. I know my reasons are selfish, but id rather my brother come home on the train then in a box with a flag drapped over it.

Some parameters for the tread, Please keep your post to your opinions as the title states its an opinion thread, Im not trying to persuade anyone of anything, i just enjoy hearing others opinions on this matter.

Thanks a bunch

First, I'm not an American but I'm a conservative Canadian and I'll give you my opinion as an outsider (although we have a fairly large contingent of soldiers in Afghanistan.) Iran is a country quite a bit bigger than iraq and I don't see the US military having any more luck there than in either of iraq or afghanistan. Both countries are in absolute chaos (iraq is worse) although strategically it may make sense for the US forces to take Iran as well because it would give the US forces a regional presence (Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan in Asia are akin to Mexico, USA, and Canada in North America). The reason that these wars are failing is the same reason other invasion type wars have failed in the past. Invasions rarely work because when threatended average citizens become willing to come to the defense of their country and it's relatively easy to push the occupying forces out compared to how difficult it is to weed out armed average citizens dressed in plain clothing and surging defense forces. Remember what happened in WW2, Hitler took over Europe in a matter of weeks but were pushed out back to Germany. In Korea, the communists were pushed back to the North. In Vietnam the Americans wound up pulling out, and in Kuwait Saddam's army was fairly easily pushed out. It is much easier to defend a country than to invade one. Another problem the US has is that its soldiers aren't trained in peace keeping...they are combat soldiers. Notice in Afghanistan there are NATO soldiers keeping the peace and the numbers of casualties has slowly been reduced, there have been quite a few Canadian soldiers killed there but it's hard to not notice that recently the numbers of casualties is falling. Another example of this is in Iraq where the British soldiers are concentrated, these are areas of relative peace. I find this interesting, because the British signed up for a war and are keeping the peace...I actually heard on CNN about a year ago that Bush asked Blair for more soldiers because of this training. He bluntly said "they're doing a fine job but there aren't enough of them."

In closing, you're right the loss of american life would be too great and it would cost your economy too. I don't think it's prudent for your government to consider attacking another country, your forces are too stressed already and it would be political suicide for whoever sends the soldiers in there.

[Mad_Michael]

1. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) has proven to be extremely effective in maintaining 'nuclear' peace amongst nuclear powered nations - as long as a relative balance is maintained. It is important to keep in mind the converse of this - that an imbalance of nuclear weapons capability is inherently a dangerous or unstable condition.

Really, how many nuclear weapons have been used since there has been an imbalance? Your theory that more nukes are better and it doesn't matter who has them is downright scary.

The only nukes that have ever been used in battle were used during a period of imbalance (one nation had a temporary monopoly). This supports the points I've made. Imbalance is inherently dangerous.

And if you review what I said, you will see that I have not asserted that "more nukes are better" or that "it doesn't matter who has them". Those are your misinterpretations of my words. My statements were predicated upon specific conditions that you apparently choose to ignore.

For example, if any nation in Africa were to acquire nuclear weapons, that would be very bad since it would introduce a new instability. Thus, it matters very much WHO has nukes and who doesn't. And more nukes (as in this case) would be a very bad thing. This is commesurate with my argument posted above - and proves your point to be an erroneous interpretation of my post.

[AndrewL]

...By far the most likely government to use nukes in a first strike is the US. The US has stated explicitly in their defense review their right to a first strike against another non-nuclear nation. They are the only nation to make this threat public. The entire logic behind the missile defense program is to retain a nuclear first strike capability against Russia and China, or any other nation. They want the ability to make MAD non-applicable, as it was when they nuked japan. I support any and all efforts to make this goal impossible.

Nope.....France has recently made the exact same nuclear threat for mind games with Iran:

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/...rrent%20Affairs

The USA and FSU/Russia have always maintained a first strike nuclear option. It is neither new or remarkable.

Is this official french policy, as it is in the american nuclear posture review, or was it just Chirac making noise for the microphones?

The threat of a nuclear fisrt strike against a non nuclear nation is new, and it is remarkable.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Thing is, Iran could not get away with a nuclear first strike, but the US could.

They've had nukes for over sixty years, the Soviet Union has been gone for seventeen, so why haven't they? You forget that the US is a democracy who's government is accountable to the people. Most of these other places are not. The government you love to hate will be history in a year and a half by peacefull democratic means. These other guy's? You and MM seem to work on the philosophy that if the cops have guns, the town will be a safer place if the crooks have them to.

And they are also the only nation to ever use them when they a had a monopoly on their use.

I have not forgotten that the US is a democracy. And they certainly do have some level of accountability.

But i am not underestimating the will of the poeple in the US to go along with such an act.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Andrew

Greetings Andrew!

Perhaps I might lend a hand.

* * *

When it comes to the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons, I respectfully submit that there is no substantial increase in danger to world peace here. Indeed, if it is our general goal to maintain a relatively peaceful planet, then the development of nuclear weapons capability by Iran is not something that ought to be rationally feared.

1. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) has proven to be extremely effective in maintaining 'nuclear' peace amongst nuclear powered nations - as long as a relative balance is maintained. It is important to keep in mind the converse of this - that an imbalance of nuclear weapons capability is inherently a dangerous or unstable condition.

2. The long standing (and bloody) conflict between Pakistan and India has actually reduced and improved - only once nuclear weapons were balanced on both sides.

3. The NPT is actually a closed club of elite powers that is in itself, nothing more than a political monopoly, which is ultimately, destabilising. Given the subject of nuke weapons, instability is the absolute worst negative.

4. At present, there is a nuclear imbalance in the Middle East region caused by Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons. This is a major contributing factor to Middle East regional instability.

5. Ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian State has acted in every way as a rational state actor.

On this basis, I do not see the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology by Iran to pose a significant danger to world peace. Indeed, post-WW2 history suggests that Iran's eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons capability will, in all reasonable probability, act as a stabilising measure in the region. The Middle East is desperately in need of some major elements of stablity. Nuclear weapons parity in the Middle East is the most likely way to achieve some stability in this tormented region.

As usual, MM, i agree fully.

Andrew

[Wilber]

But i am not underestimating the will of the poeple in the US to go along with such an act.

No, you are over estimating it. What makes you believe that they are so different from you other than your own prejudices?

[AndrewL]

But i am not underestimating the will of the poeple in the US to go along with such an act.

No, you are over estimating it. What makes you believe that they are so different from you other than your own prejudices?

The fact that close to 90% of americans believed that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam in the run up to war. While the rest of the world was under no such impression at all.

How do you explain that?

The fact is the US is a fairly insular country that pays little attention to what goes on outside their own bubble, and if you combine this with their historical militancy and glorification of all things war, than yes, i think it is likely that given the right sort of propaganda the US populace could conceivably support the use of a nuclear first strike against a non-nuclear nation, and they would get away with it.

No other nation on the planet could.

Andrew

[Leafless]

The fact is the US is a fairly insular country that pays little attention to what goes on outside their own bubble, and if you combine this with their historical militancy and glorification of all things war, than yes, i think it is likely that given the right sort of propaganda the US populace could conceivably support the use of a nuclear first strike against a non-nuclear nation, and they would get away with it.

No other nation on the planet could.

Andrew

What Islamic, anti-American country, are you operating out of or is it Iran itself?

[Figleaf]

You and MM seem to work on the philosophy that if the cops have guns, the town will be a safer place if the crooks have them to.

There is no cop.

[AndrewL]

The fact is the US is a fairly insular country that pays little attention to what goes on outside their own bubble, and if you combine this with their historical militancy and glorification of all things war, than yes, i think it is likely that given the right sort of propaganda the US populace could conceivably support the use of a nuclear first strike against a non-nuclear nation, and they would get away with it.

No other nation on the planet could.

Andrew

What Islamic, anti-American country, are you operating out of or is it Iran itself?

You disagree with the content of my post? Than offer an alternative view if you can.

How do you explain the fact that the vast majority of Americans thought Saddam had a connection to 9/11, if not for their susceptibility to war propaganda and their somewhat insular nature?

Do you have another theory that would explain this?

Andrew

[bush_cheney2004]

Is this official french policy, as it is in the american nuclear posture review, or was it just Chirac making noise for the microphones?

The threat of a nuclear fisrt strike against a non nuclear nation is new, and it is remarkable.

Can't speak for France, but I can speak from experience with American tactical and strategic nuclear weapons systems. So called "first-strike" options have existed for many years and SIOP iterations. For instance, JFK considered his options during the run-up to the Berlin Crisis and certainly during the Cuban Missile Crisis over 40 years ago. Non-nuclear Soviet bloc nations as well as North Korea were considered fair game for first-strike nuclear brinksmanship in a "limited" conflict.

Several American tactical weapons systems could/can deliver nuclear warheads to nearly any world theatre, certainly including many non-nuclear nations. The threat has always been implicit, prompting some nations to declare "nuclear free" zones against US warships. The USA deployed strategic and tactical nuclear weapons systems to 27 nations during the Cold War.

Today's comparison with Iran deserves a Cold War yawn.