• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

World War Three Coming Soon?

Praktik said:
Ummm they dont even have to do that. All they need is a sub in international waters. They have these things called ICBMs now that can travel thousands of kilometers and be launched without needing emplacements in Arab states, which I agree is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

More Us presence in the Middle East then?

So do you think Baker is a nut for suggesting the extension of the nuclear umbrella?
Click to expand...
I never said that.

What would you do if Iran got the bomb?
Click to expand...
Not let it get it in the first place. Tougher international sanctions, I mean real tough, drastically isolate it from the rest of the world, and bomb its nuclear facilities.
 
Pardalis said:
Not let it get it in the first place. Tougher international sanctions, I mean real tough, drastically isolate it from the rest of the world, and bomb its nuclear facilities.
Click to expand...

So you believe a military strike can achieve the ending of the program?

Im with Zakaria and Baker on this one: there is no military option.

In any event, my question wasn't what you would do to prevent them getting a bomb (though I acknowledge I had asked that earlier - thanks), but what you would do once they got one. In that hypothetical, would you or would you not extend the nuclear umbrella?
 
I'd say set nukes in Israel and Irak and Turkey and have them all pointed towards Iran and ready to be launched at a moment's notice. How's that for deterrence?
 
Pardalis said:
I'd say set nukes in Israel and Irak and Turkey and have them all pointed towards Iran and ready to be launched at a moment's notice. How's that for deterrence?
Click to expand...

And that's exactly the problem.

Because, of course, there wouldn't be any temptation by the Iraqi to use the nukes in their territory against the Turks. Or vice versa. There's never been any history of animosity between those two countries.
 
drkitten said:
And that's exactly the problem.

Because, of course, there wouldn't be any temptation by the Iraqi to use the nukes in their territory against the Turks. Or vice versa. There's never been any history of animosity between those two countries.
Click to expand...

This is getting really crazy.

Starting from the really questionable assumption that you'd need to position nuclear weapons IN THE MIDDLE EAST ITSELF for the US to provide nuclear deterrence against a nuclear armed Iran, somehow this has turned into the United States GIVING IRAQ NUCLEAR WEAPONS which it might then USE AGAINST THE TURKS (did you mean Kurds?)

WTF BATMAN.
 
Pardalis said:
I'd say set nukes in Israel and Irak and Turkey and have them all pointed towards Iran and ready to be launched at a moment's notice. How's that for deterrence?
Click to expand...

Any realization that this is exactly what you were criticizing me for a few posts before?

You are now advocating for exactly what had you blathering here:

Pardalis said:
So you want the US to deploy nuclear weapons in the Islamic states surrounding Iran? How will that be seen by the Arab world?

Or do you mean you want to give nuclear capability to Iran's neighbours, adding more nuclear states to the existing gang?

It seems you're trying to patch a hole by creating more holes.

People, it's called non-proliferation. N-o-n-p-r-o-l-i-f-e-r-a-t-i-o-n. Look it up.
Click to expand...

Seems you have been unwilling to incorporate what I and others have pointed out: namely that there is no need to physically install nuclear weapons in ME client states.

Further, I find it strange that despite this difference between us (you placing nukes in ME states, me relying on long-range missiles from mobile platforms in international waters), you now recognize the value of extending the nuclear umbrella once Iran gets the bomb. Cause it seemed to be a source of incredulity about 30 mins ago...
 
Praktik said:
you now recognize the value of extending the nuclear umbrella once Iran gets the bomb. Cause it seemed to be a source of incredulity about 30 mins ago...
Click to expand...

I personally think it's awesome that he's got an open mind and can be swayed by a logical argument.
 
Honestly, if we wanted to and didn't care about Israel or India or Turkey, we could just wipe Iran off the map right now. Their missiles just can't reach us, and they have no missile defenses. There's no way they could respond in a nuclear exchange, and there's no other nuclear-capable nation who would care enough to retaliate on their behalf.
 
Last edited:
Jontg said:
Honestly, if we wanted to and didn't care about Israel or India or Turkey, we could just wipe Iran off the map right now. Their missiles just can't reach us, and they have no missile defenses. There's no way they could respond in a nuclear exchange, and there's no other nuclear-capable nation who would care enough to retaliate on their behalf.
Click to expand...

Channelling Ahmadinejad are we? ;)
 
Praktik said:
Further, I find it strange that despite this difference between us (you placing nukes in ME states, me relying on long-range missiles from mobile platforms in international waters), you now recognize the value of extending the nuclear umbrella once Iran gets the bomb. Cause it seemed to be a source of incredulity about 30 mins ago...
Click to expand...

The US already has army bases in those countries, so no new bases are created, and it wouldn't be a defensive "umbrella", it would be an offensive stance, all canons aimed at Iran directly. One move from them and it's bye-bye.
 
The idea is to not let it come to that, stop Iran before it gets the nuke.

Iran is a great civilization, it would be a shame to see it destroyed.

The "umbrella" thing is a desperate measure, it means it's already too late.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
The idea is to not let it come to that, stop Iran before it gets the nuke.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just dont think there's a military option to achieve that goal and that our options to prevent it are much more limited than starry-eyed dreamers like Cheney, Bolton or Krauthammer believe.

The main disconnect here is that America's real ability to effect the outcome they want (preventing the Iranian nuke) is much lower than advocates of military strikes believe.
 
And if when Iran gets the nuke, what's stopping them from giving warheads to Venezuela? They're buddies remember? And Venezuela already is trying to acquire ships from Russia. It'll be the Cuban missile crisis all over again.

Who is saying Iran is not a direct threat to the US again?

And it will galvanize North Korea, it will make them even more antagonistic.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
And if Iran gets the nuke, what's stopping them from giving warheads to Venezuela? They're buddies remember? And Venezuela already is trying to acquire ships from Russia. It'll be the Cuban missile crisis all over again.
Click to expand...

Before we unpack this nugget, perhaps you can point to evidence that supports the assertion that this is a possibility?

States are not usually willing to hand over the linchpins of their national security.

EDIT: appears to me your strategy through this whole thread has been to emphasize just how bad it would be if Iran would get the bomb (so you grasp at straws like the above) with the hope that this then boxes us into a "we gotta do EVERYTHING possible to stop this", which in your case pushes us closer and closer to the military option. If Venezuela's gonna have a nuke - we gotta launch the airstrikes!

But as I've said above (and according to Baker and Zakaria), military strikes have little chance of arresting the program and bring a whole host of complications that start to add up quickly on the "negative effects to US interest" side of the ledger.

This is a common tactic on this issue but I refuse to be boxed into committing to a solution that is really no solution at all.
 
Last edited:
Captain.Sassy said:
Harsh words, MILDCat!

Fine, bombing. You are acting as if Iranian support for Hezbollah was the rationale for bombing/grenading/shooting/torpedoeing/lighting on fire/using CIA weather machines to do earthquakes/ whateveritisyouthinktheUSarmedforcesshoulddo to Iran.

Way to split hairs.
Click to expand...
Not splitting hairs, you are deliberately creating a strawman. Stop it. Nobody is calling for an invasion of Iran.

ORLY.
Who brung in Hezbollah?
Click to expand...
You actually did when you claimed Iran is peaceful. Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iranian funding of these and other terrorist groups show Iran is not peaceful.

Again, the simmering conflict in Israel is not the issue here.
Click to expand...
It is an issue here, because it is Iran which is funding, arming, and training terrorist groups to attack Israel.

Iran is not a peaceful country minding its own business. Israel has never attacked Iran, and yet Iran has been attacking Israel for 30 years.

And btw, altering my user name is a breach of your membership agreement. If I was the type to report you you could get suspended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom