nuclear strike against Iran?

[Thin Black Line]

By by all means, lets let Iran develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes and then develop nuclear weapons and then count ourselves lucky when they only raze the heart out of Israel and destroy the border areas of Jordan, Lebanan, Egypt and perhaps Syria

I heard similar arguments before my deployment to Iraq.....turns out that
was all just a mistake

By all means, please enlist and join me on our next Constitutionally-stretched
unable-to-be-justified-bv-the-Founding-Fathers-deployment-in-support-
of-Operation-Globocop. Our Kings living elsewhere overseas need the
cannon fodder.

 

[carlrodd]

Huh? When's the last time (before the 1940's) there was such a conflict in this region?-shootinstudent

i really don't mean to be rude, but go study up on near/middle eastern history. jews and arabs have been in conflict since 1500 or more years before christ, and have been in a struggle for ownership of palestine for just as long.

 

[shootinstudent]

i really don't mean to be rude, but go study up on near/middle eastern history. jews and arabs have been in conflict since 1500 or more years before christ, and have been in a struggle for ownership of palestine for just as long.

I don't take it as rude, I'm just confused. I spent four years studying this for a degree.

So I'll ask again: Can you name a single war between muslims and jews before the 1940's?

I'll give you my prediction: You can't do that, because no such war ever happened. Muslims and Jews used to cooperate, right up to the dawn of the 20th century, in Israel/Palestine.

I do believe that this fantasy-land vision of a 1000 year old conflict in the middle east leads people to believe that absolutely insane plans like nuking the whole place are the only solution. I think that's the real danger of having a completely inaccurate view of the history here and that's why I mention it...this conflict is about 100 years old, give or take a few decades. We've done more with worse in the past without an extermination campaign.

 

[Owen]

I bet the DOD also has plans for nuking Peoria.

 

[carlrodd]

I don't take it as rude, I'm just confused. I spent four years studying this for a degree.

So I'll ask again: Can you name a single war between muslims and jews before the 1940's?

I'll give you my prediction: You can't do that, because no such war ever happened. Muslims and Jews used to cooperate, right up to the dawn of the 20th century, in Israel/Palestine.

I do believe that this fantasy-land vision of a 1000 year old conflict in the middle east leads people to believe that absolutely insane plans like nuking the whole place are the only solution. I think that's the real danger of having a completely inaccurate view of the history here and that's why I mention it...this conflict is about 100 years old, give or take a few decades. We've done more with worse in the past without an extermination campaign.
-shootinstudent

israelites vied with ancestors of modern day arabs, who were not too distant relatives, for control of palestine, starting some 3500 or more years ago. islam was created as an arab religion, set against the claims that jews were chosen by the one god. despite the fact that during certain periods, jews and arabs/muslims have experienced relative peace, the relationship has been tenuous at best. if you choose to deny the religious and ethnic origins of this conflict, that's your right, but you will be hard pressed to ever understand the true nature of the problem.

arab/muslim hatred for jews is directly linked to familial/ethnic strife that began prior to the original conquest of palestine, it experienced a new growth with the creation of islam, and has been further exacerbated by the creation of a jewish state in the 20th century, which served to reignite millenia-old passions. if you really find it that hard to swallow, ask yourself why the muslim world, with the arab world at the center, regularly refers to the aforementioned history, which you so quickly dismiss as essential, when they spew their venom at israel.

 

[shootinstudent]

arab/muslim hatred for jews is directly linked to familial/ethnic strife that began prior to the original conquest of palestine, it experienced a new growth with the creation of islam, and has been further exacerbated by the creation of a jewish state in the 20th century, which served to reignite millenia-old passions. if you really find it that hard to swallow, ask yourself why the muslim world, with the arab world at the center, regularly refers to the aforementioned history, which you so quickly dismiss as essential, when they spew their venom at israel.

What I find hard to swallow is an Arab-Jewish conflict in a time when the Arabs didn't control any of the land???

Was Alexander the Great an Arab? How about the Ancient Egyptians? The Romans? The Persians? The Byzantine-Romans?

Uh....I think you need to do some rereading of your history books.

You did not name a single battle between Jews and Muslims (or even Jews and Arabs) because there isn't one. The Jews cooperated with the Arabs in defeating the Persians and the Romans, and for good reason...they got a much, much better deal from the Muslim Arabs than anyone else. That was in the 7th century, and there was no Arab-Jewish or Muslim-Jewish war between that time and the 20th century.

That "relative peace" period you mentioned is 1000 years long.


Back to nuclear arms in Iran...this is a problem-government that is even more young than the Israeli-Arab conflict. The best solution to prevent proliferation is to threaten attacks, sanctions, and invasions only as a last-resort...the problem now is that Iran recognizes, rightly, that it might be invaded just because it's not friendly to the US. Given that, what incentive does it have to NOT develop nuclear weapons?

There has to be a benefit to not getting nuclear weapons in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, period. When the alternative to staying non-nuclear is getting invaded anyway, any country in its right mind will rush to develop them as a deterrent.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Lobotomy Boy, why is it you insist on insulting those who disagree with your positions? The credibility of your positions is diminished by disparaging those with whom you disagree.

Saying that most people operate on a preschool level when it comes to knowledge of basic history is not an insult; it is a plain fact. Most research I've seen indicates that the average American's reading skills are somewhere between the fifth- and seventh-grade levels. My wife makes her living administering standardized testing (we've made a bundle thanks to "No Child Left Behind), and I see a lot of this sort of research. I taught writing at the college level and my own experiences back this up. If people have reading comprehension skills at a fifth-grade level, then their understanding of what they read (if they read) is similarily at a fifth-grade level. No insult intended--just a simple statement of fact.

As far as waiting for the enemy to fire the first shot, a shot "that might come in the form of a mushroom cloud," when what's at stake is nothing less than global nuclear war, I think the time has come to exercise a little patience. Leave the swaggering threats in the fifth-grade classroom.

 

[Ira Aten]

The problem isn't that Iran has the capability. The problem is their leader has promised to use it much sooner than later. He has promised to use it against the United States if we do not please him, and to definitely use it against Israel, simply because he does not believe, nor does his religion allow him to believe, that Israel should be allowed to exist.

Pretty simple problem, but the solution is going to be a real mess.

 

[Art Eatman]

Lobotomy Boy said, "From a tactical geopolitical standpoint our current actions are more akin to Hitler's than to those of England or France in 1938-1940."

That's an interpretation of fact, not fact as such. It bears no relationship whatsoever to our current actions in Iraq or our current stance vis-a-vis Iran. I would not argue against the idea of flawed tactics in Iraq, but they are not Hitlerian. Our stance against Iran certainly is not Hitlerian due to the lack of interest in any form of occupation of that country.

History lesson: Hitler's actions in the late 1930s were geared to improving the economic power of Germany and gaining lebensraum under German control. There is no evidence whatsoever of Germany's allowing any form of autonomy in the occupied regions.

The French and British attempted peaceful negotiation during that time, and we know what indeed happened.

The oft-repeated hostile statements by the Iranian leadership are part of the age-old game of threat and bluster in the Middle East. The big problem is that threat-and-bluster + nuclear devices and delivery systems are a quantum leap beyond what has ever come before.

Mutually Assured Destruction created the Detente between the USSR and the West. One wonders if such can be operable in the case where religious zealotry is involved.

Art

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Art you are correct in saying that our goals and policies are not comparable to Hitler's, but that is what I described as the political or philosophical; I'm talking about the actual battle strategies and tactics in the field. Here the similarities are striking.

First, Hitler originally planned to fight a repeat of WWI in Europe. It was only through a fortuitous series of events (for Hitler it was fortuitous anyway) that the Wehrmacht adopted the policy of Blitzkreig. After that it was all downhill because Hitler and his staff refused to listen to their generals (sound familiar?). First Hitler and some of the old guard generals got nervous and put the brakes on Blitzkreig, leading to the "Miracle at Dunkirk." Rommel and other generals wanted Hitler to take the Suez canal and Malta and secure the Italian position in Libya, thus controlling the bulk of the world's known oil supply as well as the transport of oil. Instead Hitler decided to take Crete, put too few troops on the ground in northern Africa (again, sound familiar?), and invade Russia.

You are correct that the goals of the Bush administration are much different than those of Hitler, but that is not what I was saying. My point is that from a strategic battle-field point of view our current leaders have much in common with the Third Reich because they have conducted war with strategies based on self-interest, hubris, and arrogance rather than information, logic, and common sense.

 

[Art Eatman]

"My point is that from a strategic battle-field point of view our current leaders have much in common with the Third Reich because they have conducted war with strategies based on self-interest, hubris, and arrogance rather than information, logic, and common sense."

Stipulate for the moment that you're correct. How is that relevant to anything?

It strikes me as comparing Saddam Hussein and George Bush as being alike because they were good to their kids.

I'm opposed to "self-interest", given the number of UN sanctions and the multitudes of statements from the leaders of both our political parties about Saddam and WMD.

I can--to an extent--see "hubris" in the decision about the number of our troops who were needed to have an early clamp-down on Jihadist activity after Hussein's military was defeated (a foregone conclusion from the git-go). The generals wanted more men; the Administration said, "Go, now!"

I don't think "arrogance" is quite the proper word. There obviously was insufficient understanding of the degree of emotion, of religious fervor, by Jihadists as to a willingness to go to Iraq and die for Islam.

Per commentary in Kaplan's "Imperial Grunts", it seems that the present situation--or problems--is due in part to the typical Pentagon penchant for having more bureaucracy and REMFs on the scene and not enough fighting troops. This behavior is reminiscent of the era of MacNamara as SecDef. "Management".

Art

 

[ArmedBear]

I sure as hell hope that we conduct our military actions (and all of our foreign actions) 100% in our self-interest. I don't want to ask anyone to risk and perhaps lose his/her life in war for any other reason, EVER.

We are forcibly and excessively taxed, and the money is spent by our corruptible representatives and their appointed bureaucrats. This is bad enough. But spending it on ANYTHING that is not in the interest of the United States is much worse.

BTW Iran today is the best argument for our going to Iraq. Had times been different in the late 1970s, and had Jimmy Carter been anything but a pathetic embarrassment as a President, Iran would not pose a threat today. People would have lost their lives, but in the long term, perhaps fewer would have. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein's power would not have been what it became, without Iran as Iraq's enemy, and US support for Iraq. He probably would never have invaded Kuwait, either.

Decisive military action by Carter as Commander in Chief, when our embassy was taken and its occupants held hostage, could have changed history.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Leave the swaggering threats in the fifth-grade classroom.

hehehehe...

"If you persist, I will kill you. And know that it is less pleasant for me to say it than to do it." Julius Caesar

I guess one of the veritable geniuses of antiquity also belongs in the 5th grade?

It seems to me the very point of the "swaggerers" is that empty threats is what has gotten us on the ledge. We should not make any threats if we are not willing to substantiate them. But threats have to be made when zealot punks are grabbing at nukes. Therefore, let's substantiate our threats.

 

[ArmedBear]

There obviously was insufficient understanding of the degree of emotion, of religious fervor, by Jihadists as to a willingness to go to Iraq and die for Islam.

Absolutely.

Both the right and left totally misunderstood Jihadism and completely ignored its long history. It's not about oil; it's not about Playboy or McDonald's; it's not about colonial history. It's about a violent and very old wing of Islam that believes passionately in conquering the world in the name of Allah and forcing us all to become Muslims by their definition, or die.

This is not a "war on terror." We are not fighting Basque Separatists, the IRA, or the ELF/ALF environuts. We are not even really fighting the Palestinian terrorists. We are fighting Jihadists.

It's Bush's fault for trying to avoid saying so in 2001 and 2002. The term GWOT is the Republican answer to moonbat Political Correctness. And, like the left, the right began to lose touch with reality because it listened to its own twisted terminology. Words can have power.

 

[Cosmoline]

I am still patiently waiting for the bleeding hearts to propose just ONE practical solution to WMD proliferation.

MAD has served us well since the 1950's. Iran simply needs to understand that as a nuclear power if its weapons find their way out or are launched, Iran will cease to exist. Every higher life form there will be turned to dust and shadow. Nobody will be able to set foot there for a thousand years. That sort of thing has a remarkable effect on even crazy dictators.

But none of this works if we start thinking we can use "limited" nuclear weapons. We must always make sure that the results of using even small nukes will be total and complete destruction of the responsible nation.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Stipulate for the moment that you're correct. How is that relevant to anything?

It's relevant because, as I wrote in my original post, if the bungling in Iraq was comparable to Hitler's bungling in the Mediterranean, then Iran will be his Barbarossa. See the pattern?

 

[ArmedBear]

MAD has served us well since the 1950's.

Iran is not acting alone, though. Surely it sees an opportunity to work with Jihadists around the world.

Where is the target?

This is not the Cold War. "Fighting the last war" is what military strategists call the shortsightedness that can get a lot of people killed. Examples include the early Civil War, where rifles were used with smoothbore tactics; World War I, where single-shot rifle tactics were used in a war that included airplanes, tanks and machine guns; World War II in the Pacific, where bulky long-range battle rifles were used in jungle guerilla warfare. The list goes on...

 

[vynx]

What a topic. I believe the problem of Iran using Nuclear weapons is less than Iran giving nuclear weapons to terrosists and denying they gave them. This way they can deny using them. That is why Iran or Iraq should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. And, believing they won't make them if they have the chance is like believing Santa Claus will save you.

That said, the USA has not threatened to Nuke anyone. We just won't say we won't. Damn reporters knew this would stir up the pot. Why do we let them get us so riled.

Also, don't you believe that Isreal, looking out for themselves, will not allow Iran to obtain nukes? I think some mysterious accident will happen and everyone will know but no one can prove that Isreal was behind it.

 

[Cosmoline]

Iran is not acting alone, though. Surely it sees an opportunity to work with Jihadists around the world.

If it works with them and supplies them with nukes, we simply have to make it very clear that we will destroy their civilization. It's the only way to keep the nuclear demon holed up. Beyond that, it's extremely dangerous to let our own generals and policy makers start thinking of nukes as a viable tool for use on the battlefield. We have to maintain the doctrine that no nukes can ever be deployed by anyone without triggering total global annihilation. Otherwise as I said it's one small step to deploying them like any other bomb--and that's patently INSANE. Crazier, in fact, than any Jihadist.

I'm not against attacking Iran to stop their program, but I think it needs to be done on the sly through third parties. Preferably as a bullet through their president's cranium and a few well-placed bombs at the homes of the chief engineers. Any overt nuclear "bunker buster" will a) probably hit the wrong target and b) just invite Iran and others to return the favor.

 

[Waitone]

Blustering has its place in diplomacy. Problem is it has to be matched with unpredictibility on the part of the chief executive. Presidents get into problems with sabre rattling when past performance or perceived future performance doesn't match the rhetoric.

A few examples: During the Vietnam war Nixon fell into the predictible pattern of negotiating with the NV's using the table and moral superiority as a weapon against the badguys. Results were predictible in the negotiations literally went no where. All that changed when Nixon ordered out of the clear blue B-52 raids on the north and promptly walked away from the table. Wasn't long thereafter the NV's were talking turkey.

Carter had no interest in foreign issues. All that changed with the Iranian "student" took the US embassy. Carter huffed and puffed publicly but the force of his policy was negotiating through the Canadian and Swiss embassies. He launched the ill-fated rescue operation which failed for a number of reasons. The failure doomed the hostages to long term unpleasantness. The following election against Reagan featured Reagan making warlike comments through out the campaign. The negotiating tactic was to play Reagan as a crazy cowboy and no on knows what the nut will do. Better cut a deal now while the cutting is good because ain't no telling what he will do once he's in the WH. (That was when I knew Reagan would defeat Carter). The good cop/bad cop routine went on right up to Reagan taking the oath.

Reagan's term contined the tradition of the crazy cowboy. He talked rough in planned venues as well as off the cuff remarks. Combine the talk with a few military actions (Grenada and Libya and others) and the badguys simply had no idea what the crazy cowboy would do.

Reagan leaves and Bush 41 talks the same way. He mastered the art of sounding sinister without backing it up with reality. He made famous the phrase "I will not comment on on-going military operations". ***! what's he talking about. Then he pulled off Gulf I after saying he would attack if Sadaam refused to get out of Kuwait. They refused and he did. So when Bush made threats (privately or publicly) the question became what will he do.

Bush 41 departed and Clinton ascended the throne. He developed a pattern of talking big and acting small. His predictable pattern was huff and puff and make noise. Do the diplomacy thingy and occasionally make a few things to boom. In every case he failed to commit to the course of action, always wanting a way out. The badguys picked up on the pattern and because confident in their ability to predict his response to a given outrage. This is why OBL felt confident in his actions knowing the US really would not react.

Clinton leave and Bush 43 ascends the throne. OBL read the new Bush to be another Clinton so he felt there was no chance of real retaliation against outrageous terror attacks. He guessed wrong and the rest is history.

So now we have a face-off with Iran in effect. Iran may be ruled by religious nutcases, the front man being an example, but at some level in the government realists exist and they are trying to evaluate the chances of Bush following through with his verbage. They simply can not say he won't act given what happened next door. They can assume he will cave to public opinion, but then they look at what is going on next door. They say we would never launch airstrikes like the Israels did, but then someone will point out the Israelis flew the planes and pickled the bombs but virtually everything else was the US at work (open secrets). Policy makers in the Iranian government can say the US could never drop their government then they get to consult with surviving Taliban members who remind them the US did in a few months what the Soviet Union couldn't do in 10+ years and they did it with a itty-bitty fraction of the troop levels.

Bottom line is Bush is playing the wildman character to the tee. He's letting others say things that worry the badguys. It is clear his rhetoric is targeting certain individuals in the Iranian government. We critics of Bush like to make fun of his efforts and bluster and all know he doesn't dare go against public opinion, yada yada yada. Fact of the matter is Iran can not predict his actions. Iranian bluster aside, Bush's actions combined with his rhetoric is giving pause to any stupidity on Iran's side. It is tradition for Americans to assume the world thinks like we do and would therefore react the same way as we would. Incorrect assumption.

 

[Byron Quick]

I've only skimmed the thread. Pardon me if this has been mentioned before.


I don't believe that the US will have the opportunity to use nukes against Iran. The US will be beaten to the punch by Israel.

Iranian nuclear weaponry is a possible threat to the US requiring Iran to supply the devices to Jihadist terrorists who then smuggle the device into US territory.

Iran already possesses delivery systems capable of targteting every Israeli population center. Given the nature of the threat, Israel cannot afford to wait until Iran has nuclear devices to place on the missiles.

Failing that, France would probably go nuclear with Iran before the US did.

Mutual Assured Destruction strategic theory bases its logic on each side being rational enough to be deterred by assured destruction. Would you be willing to bet your survival on the rationality of the Iranian leaders? If so, have you been listening to them?

 

[CAnnoneer]

MAD has served us well since the 1950's. Iran simply needs to understand that as a nuclear power if its weapons find their way out or are launched, Iran will cease to exist.

Therein the problem. I do not think they do/can understand that. They watch our crappy media and think we are a bunch of sissy clowns. Are we?

That sort of thing has a remarkable effect on even crazy dictators.

I am not convinced. The Korean guy has no religion, likes big busty blondes, drinks whiskey, eats pork, and watches westerns. He wants to keep having the above, and nukes will take those away from him. Ergo the leverage.

The Iranian nutcases think they go to heaven if you nuke them. There is no leverage. Let's do them a favor and arrange their travel. Or they will arrange ours.

But none of this works if we start thinking we can use "limited" nuclear weapons. We must always make sure that the results of using even small nukes will be total and complete destruction of the responsible nation.

In that we absolutely agree.

 

[ArmedBear]

It would sure be interesting if France did it.

 

[Kaylee]

Lest we forget what they have in mind for us..

They want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.. and they think they have to take us out of the fight to do it.

Right now Iran is in a pincer between Afghanistan and Iraq.. Provided the rebuilding goes even halfway well, they'll be sitting between two functioning western-style republics. They know that and we know that... and honestly, I suspect there's more than a little desperation fueling their fire now.

I'd sooner we not have to go back to the nuke well. But if it has to happen.. better them than us.

 

[shootinstudent]

I'm not against attacking Iran to stop their program, but I think it needs to be done on the sly through third parties. Preferably as a bullet through their president's cranium and a few well-placed bombs at the homes of the chief engineers. Any overt nuclear "bunker buster" will a) probably hit the wrong target and b) just invite Iran and others to return the favor.

There it is in a nutshell.

Forget Israel, forget oil, forget the supposed "long history of jihadism" (that's an invented history, pure and simple)...

It is just plain insane to use nuclear weapons as "limited tactical devices." The connotations and culture of nukes are so ugly at this point that all the US will do, is guarantee a nuclear terrorist attack or a move by some other power (China) under the banner of "protecting the world from US genocide" to take an aggressive stance towards the US and its interests.