Would Attacking Iran Be Worth It?

[yinyinwang]

LOL. You sound like the Christians who say, "Prove there's not a God." The only evidence you have for Iran building a bomb is that they're enriching uranium. Yes, that could be for a bomb, but it could also be for a power plant (which they have also built).

There are other safer ways for a nuke plant, they can work with the UN agency to do it, they have cheaper access to large energy under ground, why has this dangerous path to nuke power?

 

[Tricky]

There are other safer ways for a nuke plant, they can work with the UN agency to do it, they have cheaper access to large energy under ground, why has this dangerous path to nuke power?

I don't know for sure. Having a nuke plant is of itself a danger to the host country, giving a target that even conventional weapons could turn into a terrible disaster as bad as Chernobyl.

I'm not saying that Iran isn't doing this for a bomb, only that if we are going to accuse them of that, then we ought to have more evidence than just the fact that they can enrich uranium.

 

[yinyinwang]

I don't know for sure. Having a nuke plant is of itself a danger to the host country, giving a target that even conventional weapons could turn into a terrible disaster as bad as Chernobyl.

I'm not saying that Iran isn't doing this for a bomb, only that if we are going to accuse them of that, then we ought to have more evidence than just the fact that they can enrich uranium.

Having a enriched plant is more dangerous than other form of nuclear plant, that is for sure, if you have a UN surveying plant, it is less suspectious, isn't it, therefor less likely being attacked.
Evidence is for those who provide the cooperation for collecting it, if they have nothing to hide, why preventing it.

BTW, the mistakes made before for other countries' nuke programs is no justification for Iran's.

 

[Corsair 115]

One fifth of the buildings is hardly corner-to-corner destruction, though there were (relatively) small areas of near total destruction.

On the other hand, "Destruction of buildings and infrastructure was nearly total in parts of the inner city business and residential sectors" as you mentioned in your reply would surely count as being quite significant. Destroying commerce would certainly cause a lot of problems, would it not?

Also, "The outlying sections suffered relatively little damage. This averages to one fifth of all buildings (50% in the inner city) for overall Berlin" is, as it states, an average. Half of all buildings destroyed in the inner city is something not to be dismissed as without significant impact.

As I said, it does depend on the interpretation of the terms. Wiping out substantial parts of the potential economic activity would have considerable effects on the social order and people's standards of living, which can be considered as part of the calculus of "destruction" depending on how wide one wants to define the application of the word.

 

[Tricky]

As I said, it does depend on the interpretation of the terms. Wiping out substantial parts of the potential economic activity would have considerable effects on the social order and people's standards of living, which can be considered as part of the calculus of "destruction" depending on how wide one wants to define the application of the word.

You are right, that it boils down to semantics, so really the statement that started this derail can be interpreted almost any way you like. In any case, I would strongly advise the US not to engage in any sort of massive destruction in Iran, especially since they have done nothing that justifies such actions. We would have the whole Muslim world against us, as well as a great deal of the rest of the world. Yes, even moreso than now.

If 9-11 taught us anything, it should have been that you don't need nukes to inflict great casualties on another country. We lost a lot of freedom as a result of that attack. That may be a greater tragedy than the loss of life.

 

[Darth Rotor]

All I'll say is I'm intimately familiar with our nuclear 'underwater' navy, and I don't believe I'm wrong. However, I was being a little sarcastic and I'm not advocating wiping out Iran at this point in time!

The nuclear weapons (sub luanched or otherwise) aren't on the table regarding Iran. The one leak in that position would be Dick Cheney, and some of the silver bullet morons in the USAF, getting his [rule8]ed "bunker buster" "tactical" nukes back into a procurement and deployment program.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

If 9-11 taught us anything, it should have been that you don't need nukes to inflict great casualties on another country. We lost a lot of freedom as a result of that attack. That may be a greater tragedy than the loss of life.

Also we found something, or at least found it out: how soft much of America has become. Why else the successful appeals to victimhood and fear mongering, after 9-11?

TR wept.

DR

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, sort of sane, but when the whole world is insane, you look sane by comparison. As they say, you can't get the genie back in the bottle, but what is really insane is that anybody has nukes. We have seen what they can do. But the US has the unmitigated gall to say, "We can have nukes, but you can't" is beyond hypocrisy. You can't argue, "It's okay for us to have nukes because we would never start a war." In fact, there is only one member of that nuclear club you just listed who has used them against people. Right. The same one who says other countries can't be trusted with them.

And what have some of our brave USians here suggested we do if one of our enemies gets nukes? One said "Level them from corner to corner".

Somehow I remember something about one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq was because there was a brutal tyrant there who was ruthless in wiping out his enemies. Was that just because we don't want the competition?

But, you're forgetting that the U.S. singlehandedly saved the universe from fascism, and that everything the U.S. did during the course of WWII was a necessary part of the omnipotent FDR's plan. Nuking Japanese civilians was morally correctly by virtue of having been done by the winners of the war. Any attempt to criticize America for having nukes is doomed to failure because we're always right.

Gist: It's OK for a country that has nuked people to have nukes so they can not nuke people.

 

[Liszt]

Sez who? That's a might big assumption on your part.

I'm a sane person and I say: LET THEM HAVE NUKES!

The USA has nukes. Up the kazoo, more'n all other folks. Geez I hope they all work perfectly. I hope no live ones have accidentally fallen off of bombers (oops that actually happened). Would never use nukes, never has (oops).

Russia has nukes. That's a great country. Ever notice how nicely they treat journalists who criticize the government? They're great. Best ballet in the world. Great at nuclear power plant management too, and at informing other countries when something goes wrong.

China has nukes. People up the kazoo. Really good on human rights. Environmentally-minded, too. The haze at the 2008 Olympics? Dusty camera lenses, that's all. I think most citizens in China can now access just exactly the portions of the Internet the government authorizes. Freedom. It rings in China.

France has nukes. Staunch allies of us Americans. We love them so much that we renamed their potato finger food just to preserve the French grandeur. Helluva language, it helps to maintain a robust population here in the States. Any of us hayseeds can mumble a few French words to a bonny lass on a date and we're in like Flynn. Gets 'em every time.

Israel has nukes. But they say uh-uh. Or, maybe. Who knew? If Israel was a house on a residential street, that would be the house that would host block parties. The neighbors all love Israel, and Israel loves all the neighbors.

United Kingdom has nukes. Very self-contained country, with a stellar history of never trying to influence, or subjugate any other nation. Ever. Invented the Hound of the Baskervilles and Beef Wellington. And English Leather. All my men wear English Leather - or they wear nothing at all.

India has nukes. Showing promise. I think that more and more Indians are now frowning on the practice of bride-burning. That's progress, especially in these modern 21st century times. Great at customer service for USA-based companies.

Pakistan has nukes. They remind me of that old American cowboy tradition of providing shelter and comfort to the weary traveler or stranger. Notice? There's this one gentleman (initials of OBL) who was rudely booted out of his own country and so the pardners in Pakistan gave him a place to shuck his spurs and rest up a bit. The spirit of the Old West.

North Korea has nukes. Very influential, especially effective at getting terms into the American lexicon. Like "38th parallel". So much freedom, the citizenry are lovingly instructed by the government not to flaunt it. Could make everyone else jealous. Freedom is the best kept secret in North Korea.

And that's just who we know about. So of course Iran should have nukes. Their attributes and worthiness easily meet the withering standards of the above 9 countries.

I had to nominate this marvelous post!

 

[yinyinwang]

If 9-11 taught us anything, it should have been that you don't need nukes to inflict great casualties on another country. We lost a lot of freedom as a result of that attack. That may be a greater tragedy than the loss of life.

With nukes, the damage can be even more, that is common sense, we do not need 9/11 to teach us that.

I don't think doing nothing will win anything, even remotely, grateful or friendly from the Islamic world.

They started and they got to be finished defeated. They have chosen to learn the hard way.

Iran has been actively aggressive outside Iran, if its ambition is not defeated, what will be the next? It dose not matter to you, dose it? Because your advice will always be to give in.

 

[Tricky]

With nukes, the damage can be even more, that is common sense, we do not need 9/11 to teach us that.

Yes, it could be. So the solution would be to get rid of all nukes, would it not? Well, good luck with that.

I don't think doing nothing will win anything, even remotely, grateful or friendly from the Islamic world.

I'm not advocating "doing nothing", I'm advocating opening diplomatic lines with Iran, one of the things that was recommended by the Iraq Study Group. It might not help, but I think it's a damn sight better than rattling sabres. All that will do is make them even more eager to get some bigger sabres too.

They started and they got to be finished defeated. They have chosen to learn the hard way.

The roots of this problem go way back, as many here have discussed. Pointing fingers and saying "You started it", won't do anything toward stopping it. Besides, who "started" building nukes? Do those "starters" have to be defeated too?

Iran has been actively aggressive outside Iran, if its ambition is not defeated, what will be the next? It dose not matter to you, dose it? Because your advice will always be to give in.

LOL. Who has been the most aggressive country in the last four years? Iran has not invaded anybody, though some Iranian groups may have contributed to terrorism in Iraq. Some Saudi Arabian groups contributed to 9-11. Should we defeat Saudi Arabia too?

I understand your point of view, Yinyinwang. I am angry too, but I don't want to do things that will ultimately hurt the country I love more than they would help. That's why I didn't want to invade Iraq. That's why I don't want to invade Iran.

 

[Darth Rotor]

LOL. Who has been the most aggressive country in the last four years? Iran has not invaded anybody, though some Iranian groups may have contributed to terrorism in Iraq. Some Saudi Arabian groups contributed to 9-11. Should we defeat Saudi Arabia too?

I understand your point of view, Yinyinwang. I am angry too, but I don't want to do things that will ultimately hurt the country I love more than they would help. That's why I didn't want to invade Iraq. That's why I don't want to invade Iran.

So we agree: nuke Saudi Arabia.

DR

PS: No "may" about Iran supporting some factions (like SCIRI) in Iraq, Tricky. What is appalling is that anyone would think that they wouldn't play in that sandbox. It is Right Next Door! Of course they are going to get involved, it is pertinent to their security interests.

 

[yinyinwang]

Yes, it could be. So the solution would be to get rid of all nukes, would it not? Well, good luck with that.

It will be and yes to get rid of all weapons, but I will have good sleep with a British nuke, not someone irrationally aggressive, attaching embassy, bomb innocents, let us start from the most urgent one.

I'm not advocating "doing nothing", I'm advocating opening diplomatic lines with Iran, one of the things that was recommended by the Iraq Study Group. It might not help, but I think it's a damn sight better than rattling sabres. All that will do is make them even more eager to get some bigger sabres too.

what have we got from diplomacy till now? Setbacks.
As we all know, diplomacy dose not work on its own, especially, when dealing with religion poisoned idiots.

The roots of this problem go way back, as many here have discussed. Pointing fingers and saying "You started it", won't do anything toward stopping it. Besides, who "started" building nukes? Do those "starters" have to be defeated too?

As I have said, starting a fight is not the same thing as starting a weapon. Pls do not mix both if you could.

LOL. Who has been the most aggressive country in the last four years? Iran has not invaded anybody, though some Iranian groups may have contributed to terrorism in Iraq. Some Saudi Arabian groups contributed to 9-11. Should we defeat Saudi Arabia too?

I understand your point of view, Yinyinwang. I am angry too, but I don't want to do things that will ultimately hurt the country I love more than they would help. That's why I didn't want to invade Iraq. That's why I don't want to invade Iran.

Not some Iranian groups, there are no such thing like groups that are not backed by the government.
I just ask you a simple question, who won the cold war, Carter or Reagan?
Next time try to give your points, I am not interested in your intention statement, that can be tricky.

 

[Tricky]

It will be and yes to get rid of all weapons, but I will have good sleep with a British nuke, not someone irrationally aggressive, attaching embassy, bomb innocents, let us start from the most urgent one.

That wasn't the government of Iran or Iraq or Saudi Arabia doing any of those things. But I may point out that your opinion of who is to be trusted with nukes may be somewhat colored by your worldview. I think that worldwide, there are a great many people who are uncomfortable with the US being irrationally aggressive, even though we've give them no reason to feel that way.

what have we got from diplomacy till now? Setbacks.
As we all know, diplomacy dose not work on its own, especially, when dealing with religion poisoned idiots.

Diplomacy does not solve all problems, that is true, but diplomacy has gotten us quite a lot in the past. The thing is, it doesn't make headlines. It happens in the background. Since we have no way of telling what the world would be like without diplomacy, asking "What has diplomacy ever done for us?" is kind of a rhetorical question.

As I have said, starting a fight is not the same thing as starting a weapon. Pls do not mix both if you could.

The US has done both. As to starting a fight with Iran, it was the US who backed the Shah's bloody overthrow of the Iranian government. But that is history. My point is that justifying your current actions based on some historical event is often a mistake. Deal with the present with understanding gained from the past, but not vengeance.

Not some Iranian groups, there are no such thing like groups that are not backed by the government.

I strongly suspect that this statement is incorrect.

I just ask you a simple question, who won the cold war, Carter or Reagan?

LOL. Who won it? Are you seriously suggesting that the breakup of Russia was due to a single factor? It happened over many years, not because Reagan made speeches on how the US needs to keep building weapons to attack the Evil Empire if necessary... Oh wait. Isn't that what you are afraid Iran is doing? Being too much like us?

Next time try to give your points, I am not interested in your intention statement, that can be tricky.

Gosh, that almost sounds like you don't care why others have different points of view. No wonder you have such a low view of diplomacy.

 

[SezMe]

I just ask you a simple question, who won the cold war, Carter or Reagan?

It is a simple-minded question. The USSR had been in decline for decades trying to be a super-power while much of the nation existed in third-world conditions. We didn't win the cold war, they lost it - and the distinction is important.

Surely you don't hold the notion that Reagan saying, "Tear down that wall" really brought the cold war to an end. No, it was years of many complex world factors that lead to its collapse. The same thing would have happened had someone other than Reagan been President.

If you're going to dabble in the international political sandbox, you have to leave your black-and-white blinders back in the playroom.

ETA: Tricky beat me to it.

 

[ConspiRaider]

It is a simple-minded question. The USSR had been in decline for decades trying to be a super-power while much of the nation existed in third-world conditions. We didn't win the cold war, they lost it - and the distinction is important.

Surely you don't hold the notion that Reagan saying, "Tear down that wall" really brought the cold war to an end. No, it was years of many complex world factors that lead to its collapse. The same thing would have happened had someone other than Reagan been President.

Hmm.

And here all along I thought Sean Connery won the Cold War by handing over that caterpillar-drive Typhoon boat to Kim Basinger's hubby.

 

[yinyinwang]

That wasn't the government of Iran or Iraq or Saudi Arabia doing any of those things.

That is refreshing, so who has attacked an embassy and holding diplomatic staff hostages? US? You are not only have bad points, but have lost memory completely.

But I may point out that your opinion of who is to be trusted with nukes may be somewhat colored by your worldview.

I certainly use my judgement to reveal the true color of the issue, but I never try to paint anyone extra.

I think that worldwide, there are a great many people who are uncomfortable with the US being irrationally aggressive, even though we've give them no reason to feel that way.

Sure if they plan something bad, but I lost you in the end.

 

[yinyinwang]

Diplomacy does not solve all problems, that is true, but diplomacy has gotten us quite a lot in the past. The thing is, it doesn't make headlines. It happens in the background. Since we have no way of telling what the world would be like without diplomacy, asking "What has diplomacy ever done for us?" is kind of a rhetorical question.

O really, so just do it and never ask any questions.

 

[yinyinwang]

The US has done both. As to starting a fight with Iran, it was the US who backed the Shah's bloody overthrow of the Iranian government. But that is history. My point is that justifying your current actions based on some historical event is often a mistake. Deal with the present with understanding gained from the past, but not vengeance.

It is something done by the present president of Iran before, it is far from history!

 

[D'rok]

what have we got from diplomacy till now? Setbacks.

There has been no American diplomatic contact with Iran for 27 years until today's scheduled meeting in Baghdad.

As we all know, diplomacy dose not work on its own, especially, when dealing with religion poisoned idiots.

Right back at ya USA.

Not some Iranian groups, there are no such thing like groups that are not backed by the government.

Are you seriously trying to assert the Iranian government is behind the Iraqi Sunni insurgency? Or am I mis-interpreting your mangled syntax?

The theatre of political rhetoric aside, there are two salient points in all of this:

1. Iran has perfectly rational reasons for desiring nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has declared Iran to a member of the Axis of Evil and has graphically demonstrated (Iraq) how this axis will be dealt with. The history of American meddling in Iran (Shah) reinforces this lesson.

OTOH, acquiring nuclear capability brought the USA back to the bargaining table with that other Axis of Evil nation, North Korea. This, and the American response to post-nuclear India and Pakistan demonstrates that nuclear weapons are a ticket to concessions and constitute the coin of power and respectability in the "great game" of international politics. The lesson here is that nukes are the means to avoid Iraq's fate.

Furthermore, America (and its allies) has invaded and destroyed two nations that border Iran and threatens it with vast shows of military force in the region. In addition, Iran is surrounded and implicitly and explicitly threatened by nuclear arsenals in NATO countries and Israel.

In short, given what appear to be a vast array of existential threats amassed against it, Iran has nothing to lose and everything to gain by acquiring nuclear weapons.

2.Intentions aside, under the letter of international law (NNPT) Iran possess the right to enrich uranium. As a signatory to the NNPT, Iran has clearly protected rights to do exactly what it has been doing - namely constructing a domestic enrichment regime. There is only speculation that Iran is violating the treaty. There is no speculation required regarding the many US violations - including giving aid to India's programs, rejecting the treaty's second pillar (disarmament), nuclear sharing arrangements with NATO countries, and ongoing use (DU weapons) and development of new (tactical/bunker-buster) weapons. This level of hypocrisy is self-defeating - i.e., America does not occupy the moral high ground and Iran is unlikely to accept criticisms in this regard. The fact that the UN will not act to protect Iran's treaty rights further encourages Iran's belligerent behaviour.

The twisted war-bot logic around these political realities seems to go something like this:

We know that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons because we have created a geo-political environment in which they would be fools not to. And on top of that, they are religion-crazed fanatics who hate our freedoms and will stop at nothing to destroy us and/or Israel. Therefore, all activity that appears on the surface to be compliant behaviour in truth masks something more sinister. As a result, we must increase the threat level so that they know we are serious about thwarting them thus preventing this gathering menace. Increased pressure results in increased intransigence on the part of Iran and likely hardens their resolve to go nuclear; therefore, actual military confrontation - possibly including the "preventative" use of nuclear weapons - is inevitable and desirable.


Given the current state of world affairs, it is probably inevitable that Iran will go nuclear. IMO, current policies are hastening that end rather than delaying it. Not only that, but a nuclear-armed belligerent and isolated Iran is much more worrisome than a nuclear-armed Iran brought within the fold of the international community of nations.

War is the worst possible course of action.