The next war

[Alferd_Packer]

Romney said that if "crippling sanctions" and other strategies fail, military action would be on the table because it is "unacceptable" for Iran to become a nuclear power

Prepare for the next war, because, face it folks, it's only a matter of time before Iran develops a nuclear weapon.

We couldn't stop the Russians, the CHinese, Or any one else, what makes them think that Iran will voluntarily stop?


We can (maybe) slow the process down, but it's foolish to think we can stop it.

 

[MaGZ]

Prepare for the next war, because, face it folks, it's only a matter of time before Iran develops a nuclear weapon.

We couldn't stop the Russians, the CHinese, Or any one else, what makes them think that Iran will voluntarily stop?


We can (maybe) slow the process down, but it's foolish to think we can stop it.

It’s foolish to think there will automatically be a war if Iran gets the bomb.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It’s foolish to think there will automatically be a war if Iran gets the bomb.

That is Romney's policy plank.

 

[Cain]

The Bush administration insured that developing a nuclear weapon is one of the best ways an axis-of-evil country can guard against U.S. invasion. Call it the lesson of North Korea. Kim Jong-Il got one and it seems as though no one cares.

There are two things Republicans are concerned about regarding Iran joining the nuclear club: 1) the security of Israel, which they seem to prize above all; 2) instability in the land of oil.

What is Iran going to do with a nuclear weapon? They're effectively contained and deterred from attack because the United States (with the support of the world) will respond with such overwhelming destructive force that the country will cease to continue as a going political entity. The nuclear weapon is for defensive, not offensive purposes.

The only problems are a) developing a nuclear reactor underground in a country plagued by earthquakes; b) securing nuclear materials from theft by a terrorist group (or thieves/corrupt govt. officials who will sell to a terrorist group -- and this is more Iran's problem than anyone else because if someone detonates an Iranian nuke, the United States will kill the Iranian leadership. So the incentive structure is still in place); c) It improves the Iranians' bargaining position in negotiations. Funny how that works.

 

[mortimer]

Obama's said basically the same thing. That military action against Iran is on the table as a last resort.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Bush administration insured that developing a nuclear weapon is one of the best ways an axis-of-evil country can guard against U.S. invasion. Call it the lesson of North Korea.

That's not the result of Bush policy. That's a result of nobody in the world wanting to invade a nuclear power. It has never, ever happened, and for rather obvious reasons. Are you suggesting Bush should have changed that by invading North Korea?

Kim Jong-Il got one and it seems as though no one cares.

You're quite wrong about that. Our responses have been quite restrained by the realities of nuclear weapons, but it most definitely has made a difference, particularly in regards to South Korea's position towards the North. It's basically killed the Sunshine policy.

What is Iran going to do with a nuclear weapon? They're effectively contained and deterred from attack because the United States (with the support of the world) will respond with such overwhelming destructive force that the country will cease to continue as a going political entity. The nuclear weapon is for defensive, not offensive purposes.

Sure, it's a defensive weapon. But you have missed the obvious: that defensive capability means they would have significantly more freedom to pursue other offensive capabilities. Because while the US might feel obliged to destroy Iran if Iran used a nuke, if they merely ramp up their support for international terrorism, we might not do anything. After all, is a few hundred people killed in a terrorist attack worth starting a nuclear war over? A non-nuclear Iran might get toppled for the same actions that a nuclear Iran could engage in with impunity.

 

[WildCat]

What is Iran going to do with a nuclear weapon? They're effectively contained and deterred from attack because the United States (with the support of the world) will respond with such overwhelming destructive force that the country will cease to continue as a going political entity. The nuclear weapon is for defensive, not offensive purposes.

What if they give one to one of their terrorist proxies to detonate in a US harbor, like New York or LA?

How will we know Iran gave them the nuke, and it didn't come from N. Korea? The more rogue states (and Pakistan may well become one) with a bomb, the more plausible deniability they can count on.

Frankly, I think US policy should be if we or our allies suffer a nuclear attack by terrorists both N. Korea and Iran get smoked. Much like it was made clear to the USSR that if any of their client states attacked the US with nukes the USSR gets it too. Such is the price of joining the nuclear club.

 

[AlBell]

What if they give one to one of their terrorist proxies to detonate in a US harbor, like New York, LA, Baltimore, Houston via ship channel, Wash DC, or ras tanura Saudi marine terminal or Israel.

How will we know Iran gave them the nuke, and it didn't come from N. Korea? The more rogue states (and Pakistan may well become one) with a bomb, the more plausible deniability they can count on.

Frankly, I think US policy should be if we or our allies suffer a nuclear attack by terrorists both N. Korea and , Iran & Pakistan get smoked. Much like it was made clear to the USSR that if any of their client states attacked the US with nukes the USSR gets it too. Such is the price of joining the nuclear club.

Bolded my changes /suggestions.

 

[Bikewer]

Most all the pundits I've listened to on various NPR programs express the view presented by Ziggurat above. The posession of a nuclear capability is a hedge against invasion or serious military action, a means to stay in power, and a device to increase the freedom of action in the area.
Most all these pundits see Iran as wishing to be a major power in the area, and to return to what they see as a sort of Persian golden-age influence on affairs.

They just devoted an hour of Talk Of The Nation to this, and sadly the talk of "what to do?" boiled down to military action as a distinct possibility.

At best, though, with our current resources, we could seriously damage existing nuclear infrastructure and set the program back some years. No one is talking about invasion and occupation, which is what it would take to totally scuttle any further effort.
You'd need a huge force to accomplish that... Who's gonna pay?

Of course, as I mentioned somewhat tongue-in-cheek in another thread... There's always "nuclear diplomacy". Cheap and effective.

 

[Cain]

That's not the result of Bush policy. That's a result of nobody in the world wanting to invade a nuclear power.

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

It has never, ever happened, and for rather obvious reasons. Are you suggesting Bush should have changed that by invading North Korea?

No, I'm saying Bush's team of experts pursued a policy that encouraged N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

You're quite wrong about that. Our responses have been quite restrained by the realities of nuclear weapons, but it most definitely has made a difference, particularly in regards to South Korea's position towards the North. It's basically killed the Sunshine policy.

By "no one seems to care" I made an admittedly ethnocentric statement: the American electorate. S. Korea remains one of the most anti-American democracies in the world, so much so they retitled Captain American for its release over there.

Sure, it's a defensive weapon. But you have missed the obvious: that defensive capability means they would have significantly more freedom to pursue other offensive capabilities. Because while the US might feel obliged to destroy Iran if Iran used a nuke, if they merely ramp up their support for international terrorism, we might not do anything. After all, is a few hundred people killed in a terrorist attack worth starting a nuclear war over? A non-nuclear Iran might get toppled for the same actions that a nuclear Iran could engage in with impunity.

Geez, and here I thought I mentioned something about how it improves their bargaining position. A nuclear weapon means other countries cannot meddle in your spheres of influence.

And who cares about a few hundred people? The United States was fine with Iraq and Iran duking it out and leaving behind over a million corpses.

-------
Wildcat:

What if they give one to one of their terrorist proxies to detonate in a US harbor, like New York or LA?

Why would they do such a thing? I swear to Allah, Americans have a comic book view of the world. It's what we export: Comic book movies and vigilantism in the global arena. Mao murdered tens of millions, so he was gonna use the bomb against us. Stalin was a maniac and he was supposed to do the same. More than killing millions of Americans, these guys want to keep what they got. Why would they develop nuclear weapons at great personal risk only to just give them away?

How will we know Iran gave them the nuke, and it didn't come from N. Korea? The more rogue states (and Pakistan may well become one) with a bomb, the more plausible deniability they can count on.

This is so far fetched as to be fanciful. You don't think a nuclear blast leaves behind a signature? Radioactive isotopes? You don't think all the "usual suspects" will open their facilities to inspection to prove they didn't do it? The greatest threat comes from poorly secured materials in the former Soviet Union.

People would care far more if Twitter went dark for a week. They wouldn't even be able to tweet about how Twitter is down.

 

[mike3]

The Bush administration insured that developing a nuclear weapon is one of the best ways an axis-of-evil country can guard against U.S. invasion. Call it the lesson of North Korea. Kim Jong-Il got one and it seems as though no one cares.

There are two things Republicans are concerned about regarding Iran joining the nuclear club: 1) the security of Israel, which they seem to prize above all; 2) instability in the land of oil.

What is Iran going to do with a nuclear weapon? They're effectively contained and deterred from attack because the United States (with the support of the world) will respond with such overwhelming destructive force that the country will cease to continue as a going political entity. The nuclear weapon is for defensive, not offensive purposes.

The only problems are a) developing a nuclear reactor underground in a country plagued by earthquakes; b) securing nuclear materials from theft by a terrorist group (or thieves/corrupt govt. officials who will sell to a terrorist group -- and this is more Iran's problem than anyone else because if someone detonates an Iranian nuke, the United States will kill the Iranian leadership. So the incentive structure is still in place); c) It improves the Iranians' bargaining position in negotiations. Funny how that works.

I'm curious: would China tolerate the fallout from a US deterrence-nuking of Iran dropping on them, or could that provoke additional war with China? I.e. would this "world-supported" response end up triggering global annihilation (and so the world, in such a war scenario would be supporting its own suicide)?

 

[WildCat]

Why would they do such a thing?

Why did they bomb a Jewsish center in Argentina? Why did they plot terrorist attacks against embassies in the United States? Why do they fund, arm, and train terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah? Why do they hang homosexuals? Why do they stone rape victims to death? Etc etc.

I swear to Allah, Americans have a comic book view of the world. It's what we export: Comic book movies and vigilantism in the global arena. Mao murdered tens of millions, so he was gonna use the bomb against us. Stalin was a maniac and he was supposed to do the same. More than killing millions of Americans, these guys want to keep what they got. Why would they develop nuclear weapons at great personal risk only to just give them away?

Stalin and Mao didn't belong to an apocalyptic death cult.

This is so far fetched as to be fanciful. You don't think a nuclear blast leaves behind a signature? Radioactive isotopes? You don't think all the "usual suspects" will open their facilities to inspection to prove they didn't do it? The greatest threat comes from poorly secured materials in the former Soviet Union.

Tell us all about it, this claim has been made here before and no one has been able to explain how we would trace the origin using isotopes.

People would care far more if Twitter went dark for a week. They wouldn't even be able to tweet about how Twitter is down.

I'm sure you would be devastated.

 

[WildCat]

I'm curious: would China tolerate the fallout from a US deterrence-nuking of Iran dropping on them, or could that provoke additional war with China? I.e. would this "world-supported" response end up triggering global annihilation?

Now we're going to nuke Iran?

 

[mike3]

People would care far more if Twitter went dark for a week. They wouldn't even be able to tweet about how Twitter is down.

And what if someone actually used a nuke, then what?

 

[mike3]

Now we're going to nuke Iran?

Not that I've heard of. I was just wondering what would happen in the scenario where the "deterrence" he referred to had to be used, out of curiosity. That's all.

 

[Ziggurat]

Geez, and here I thought I mentioned something about how it improves their bargaining position.

You think all they'll do is bargain?

How foolish.

And who cares about a few hundred people? The United States was fine with Iraq and Iran duking it out and leaving behind over a million corpses.

Because they weren't American or even allied corpses. We didn't like either country.

Do YOU care about a few hundred people? Because unless you don't, then the problem should be obvious to you.

 

[AlBell]

And what if someone actually used a nuke, then what?

In a very days, global thermo-nuclear war: US, China, Russia etc.

 

[Cain]

Why did they bomb a Jewsish center in Argentina?

Did they? Funny you could be so sure if this yet in the event of a nuclear detonation you want to say Iranians (or the Koreans or the Pakistanis) could confound our crack team of scientists.

Why did they plot terrorist attacks against embassies in the United States? Why do they fund, arm, and train terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah?

For reasons not unlike other governments all around the world, including yours??

Why do they hang homosexuals? Why do they stone rape victims to death? Etc etc.

You're going off the rails.

Stalin and Mao didn't belong to an apocalyptic death cult.

Uh huh, even though they killed millions and millions more. Almost every time the Crazy Man hypothesis gets brought out. Iran is just SO crazy, yet they've managed to play the game pretty well with their modest capability. The United States on the other hand...

Tell us all about it, this claim has been made here before and no one has been able to explain how we would trace the origin using isotopes.

Talk to Grissom.

I'm sure you would be devastated.

Quite the opposite.

Ziggurat:

You think all they'll do is bargain?

How you doing equivocation fallacy?

Because they weren't American or even allied corpses. We didn't like either country.

Do YOU care about a few hundred people? Because unless you don't, then the problem should be obvious to you.

Yeah, let's just play right into the cold, dead hands of Bin Laden: over-reacting to terrorist attacks. Kerry was right when he said we need to bring terrorism back down to "nuisance" levels. You're never going to stop people from murdering each other. We could invest money in fighting heart disease, but let's just go ahead and over-extend ourselves.

-----
Mike:

And what if someone actually used a nuke, then what?

It's happened. You get hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese. That's going down when ONE country has the bomb. Anyway, the original owners of the nuke will be dead or without country.

 

[Puppycow]

The Bush administration insured that developing a nuclear weapon is one of the best ways an axis-of-evil country can guard against U.S. invasion. Call it the lesson of North Korea. Kim Jong-Il got one and it seems as though no one cares.

To be fair, North Korea is a special case.

They already had a kind of deterrent that made invading them not an option:
They could reduce Seoul to rubble within an hour with their artillery.

So in a way, while they didn't yet have nukes, they had something essentially equivalent already.

 

[I Ratant]

Now we're going to nuke Iran?

.
Me, I'd put something massive up there, and de-orbit it to strike in a non-nuclear asteroid impact type blow.
Depending on what needed to be obliterated... the nuke plant or the capital city...
With no "Made in USA" stickers on it.