[luke warm]

any opinions on this article?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/

[asdfg2k]

Yes.

[pbleighton]

I hope this is just "pressure", if not, Bush appears to have a very steep learning curve.

Peter

[keylime]

Peace through superior firepower doesn't apply here UNLESS Israel is targeted. I hope that diplomacy wins out here.

[AceOfHeart]

only america and her friends is entited to nuclear weapons, all others that tries to build it should be burnt on stake.

[luke warm]

AceOfHeart, on Apr 10 2006, 07:14 AM, said:

only america and her friends is entited to nuclear weapons, all others that tries to build it should be burnt on stake.

well ... if you insist

[Impact]

Tom Lehrer circa 1965:-

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love Peace and motherhood;
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's ok,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way;

Who's Next?

France got the bombe, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side, (I believe);
China got the bomb but have no fear,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years;

Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they,
Were gonna get one any day;
SOuth Africa wants two - that's right,
One for the black and one for the white;

Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who;
So Israel's getting tense,
Wants a bomb for self-defence;
"The Lord's our shepherd" says the psalm,
But just in case we better get a bomb....

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.


Classic satire then - and still applicable.

Seriously - you would expect "contingency plans" to have been drawn up for virtually any scenario as a amatter of course by a competent DOD.

Is it a good idea to destroy the Iranian nuclear plant/incipient plant?

Well, if you believe the public pronouncements of the Iranian government:-
1) they hate Israel and are committed to its destruction;
2) US ranks next on the hate list (the Great Satan);
3) remainder of the West/non-muslim world comes next...
4) ostensibly the doctrine of MAD does not worry them as they are convinced theirs is a holy mission (yet still very few leaders involve themselves at the sharp end in suicide type missions)...

So if survival of any of the first 3 groups is a serious issue, a pre-emptive strike maybe justified. In terms of short-term delivery obviously if you were an Israeli you would feel inclined to believe that you had little choice since this group denies your right to exist....US would see less immediacy in a risk to mainland, but the longer term delivery of nuclear devices to terrorists rather than ICBM would pose a risk.

THe contrary argument is:-

A. this will make them hate (us)/more;
B. It will only delay matters;
C. it will force them underground....
D. it should be dealt with in a multilateral (read UN) forum;
E. sanctions could be applied (preferably on a multilateral basis).

To which it is fairly easy to respond:

A1. how much more would make how much of a difference?
B1. survival is never to be sneezed at - particularly if it is your own survival...
B2. delay in this case may result in a change of government/opinion with further access to the west through internet etc and improved standard of living....
C1. so what? see B1 & B2
D1. Utopians are wonderful but given the record of the UN (excluding UNICEF & WHO ) towards Israel at least since the 1948 vote, it is hard to see the UN doing much more than passing a motion of condolence for its demise after the event.
E1. "could" is the operative word, but the likelihood of their being passed is not high.
E2. Given the application to Iraq (corruption allowing effectively only the citizens to feel the pinch), the odds with Iran worsen particularly given the amount of oil controlled by that country in the current climate;
E3. there is no data to suggest that sanctions work- even less that they would have the effect in time to provide the bulwark necessary for protection of any of the 3 groups progressively threatened - and certainly not for the first.

When survival is qustioned the relatively thin veneer of civilisation is stripped away;
Tolerance is a wonderful foundation stone of western society;
It is not possible to tolerate those who deny you the right to exist - if you wish to remain extant.

So- if you accept the premise that the survival of one group is directly threatened by Iran possessing nuclear weapons, the logical answer for that group at least is to do all in its power to minimise/avoid the risk. THat would include a "pre-emptive" strike.

[pbleighton]

"So- if you accept the premise that the survival of one group is directly threatened by Iran possessing nuclear weapons, the logical answer for that group at least is to do all in its power to minimise/avoid the risk. That would include a "pre-emptive" strike."

A classic example of all-or-nothing thinking. What is the definition of "directly threatened"? What evidence do we have that the Iranian government is suicidal - a nuclear attack by Iran on either Israel or the U.S. would certainly bring retaliation, in which more Iranians would die than Israelis or Americans? You said yourself that "yet still very few leaders involve themselves at the sharp end in suicide type missions"... no kidding. According to the CIA, the Taliban tried to dissuade Al Quaeda from 9/11. Why do you think they would do that?

This is all a matter of probabilities. What is the probability that if we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, they will attack, say, the U.S.? Weigh that against two things:
1. The number AND intensity of Muslims who hate the West does matter (espeially in the long run), and the law of unintended consequences does apply, both in Iran and in the (much) larger Muslim world.
2. The number of Iranians we would have to murder in order to purchase this "national security" is quite large, as they have buried their many nuclear facilities underground in and near heavily populated areas. This requires some sort of moral calculus - i.e. the murder of x Iranians is justified by the y percent chance that z Americans will die.

There are, of course, a large number of potential x, y, and z combinations. Would you care to give us the numbers you feel are relevant, and which would justify the cold-blooded mass murder you recommend?

Peter

[csdenmark]

Impact, on Apr 11 2006, 04:40 AM, said:

Tom Lehrer circa 1965:-

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love Peace and motherhood;
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's ok,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way;

Who's Next?

France got the bombe, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side, (I believe);
China got the bomb but have no fear,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years;

Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they,
Were gonna get one any day;
SOuth Africa wants two - that's right,
One for the black and one for the white;

Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who;
So Israel's getting tense,
Wants a bomb for self-defence;
"The Lord's our shepherd" says the psalm,
But just in case we better get a bomb....

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.


Classic satire then - and still applicable.

Those were the days as we noticed an american conscience.

Sad to say - his audience has gone to sleep.

[Impact]

Peter,

Please resist the temptation to take everything personally as relating either to you or the US.

If you read the full text, you will note that I specified firstly (albeit without footnotes) that if you accept the Iranian head of government's statements at face value, he and hence the government, have various stated policies - including the destruction of the state of Israel, its complete elimination.

On the basis of his religious fervor and again stated belief that following such destruction, any retaliation against Iran would still leave the ledger in favour of the destruction of Israel - no matter the numbers of his own people killed:-
I noted that Israel's existence was directly threatened.

The USA, aka as the Great Satan, was less directly threatened - and the means were less apparent in the short term (albeit I noted that the potential to arm terrorists with "devices" to further his aims was much more likely as a risk than ICBMs).

Oddly enough while YOU may not care so much about MY existence, I tend to care rather more than you (and probably vice versa). {Please note that I am neitehr Israeli nor American).

Hence, when it is one's own existence or state which is at risk, the balance shifts dramatically.

"Moral calculus" or moral algebra is pretty much rubbish. There are not many of us who will willingly sacrifice not merely our lives but those of our families in mere hope - or worse still for no reason at all. When the chips are down, the gloves come off - when there is no hope or only a slim hope of survival you grasp it.

You cannot blame Israel as a state which has had to deal with a continuous stream of suicide bombers for being concerned that another who espouses the same line, may soon have access to a superior bomb.

How much do they already hate Israel: enough to deny it the right to exist on any terms.

How much worse can that be?

Most Americans really want to be liked - and it is US foreign policy's greatest single failing to recognise that power may attract acolytes but it does not bring liking - whereas it breeds envy.

How much do Muslim fundamentalists hate the USA? I really don't know - but if you accept much of their stated policy viewpoints about infidels and the USA's point position as the counterculture to sharia law and the leading infidel nation, it is no small thing.

Not all Muslims are fundamentalists - but a fundamentalist Muslim nation (a description which may reasonably be applicable to Iran) is a potential threat to the West.

Geographically, the USA, Canada and Australia are relatively safe in the short term - but to what extent do or should each decline to assist its western brethren on the grounds of its own comfort.

Cloak it in morality or friendship or extended self-interest as you will, there is a point for most people - it just may differ for each!

If the USA were to retreat to a position of isolationism it would be bad for the USA - and for the rest of the world (on a simple comparative advantage and potential free trade basis if nothing else). Nonetheless isolationism has been a very popular line in the USA for at least a century (eg "America First" ).

With the advantages of modern communications including the internet, the globalisation of commerce and the internationalisation of many companies, even were isolationism popular, it would be hard to pursue as "American interests" are all over the world.

As to the job at hand: immediate destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities: that is a matter dependent upon their hardware, its defences and the offensive hardware available to any "pre-emptive force". It is not beyond the bounds of probability that the US could provide the hardware and intelligence (if anyone trusted the latter) to Israel to accomplish the task.

How many Iranians dead? I have no idea, but if I were an Israeli, whatever qualms I had would be quelled by the knowledge that my life, those of my family and my friends were all at stake.

Moral calculus again: well, unlike a group which sought my death and destruction I would try to minimise the loss of life in order to accomplish the job.

Could I sleep at night if I had to make the decision? I don't know - but I do know that if I survived but my family and friends did not because I failed to take that decision, I could not sleep at night.

Remember,if you reject the Iranian statements as mere rhetoric, that Jews are one group which have seen horrific and "unbelievable" views about their extinction, acted on over the last 70 years. Arm another group which has a stated intent to eliminate them, with the means to accomplish that task and they are rather more nervous than others.

Moral calculus and tolerance and getting everyone to love another is all very well when it is not YOUR life that is on the line.

Sometimes you have to take hard decisions - and taking that pre-emptive strike decision now might be a lot easier now than taking any decision after Iran has nuclear weapons.....

Remember the lines of Pastor Niemuller.......

[hrothgar]

I think that any attack (particularly a nuclear attack) on Iran would be an act of supreme stupidity. Such an attack seems unnecessary. It would quickly lead to an unconventional war between Iran and the United States that would make the current difficulties in Iraq pale in comparison. With this said and done, I've been constantly amazed by the sheer incompetence of this administration. Very little surprises me any more.

1. I readily agree that the Iran President has been spewing some ridiculous rhetoric. With this said and done, the Chinese under Mao made some very similar types of claims. Who can forget quotes like “If the worse came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain. Imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist.” Strangely enough, the Chinese toned down this sort of rhetoric as soon as they got their hands on some nukes. In short, there is some evidence to suggest attaining nuclear weapons forces a certain level of maturity on states.

2. An attack on Iran, with or without nuclear weapons, would have grave consequences. The Iranians certainly couldn't prevail in any conventional war with the United States. However, the Iranians have no need to wage a convention war. What “we” need to worry about is Iranian mining operations in the straights of Hormuz, attacks against Saudi refineries, and widespread Shia uprisings throughout Iraq.

3. The Iranians are five to ten years away from having any kind of nuclear weapons. There is no need for an immediate preemptive attack.

Its weird: I remember planning a vacation to Iran eight years ago. Its amazing what the US has done to radicalize the population. Funny what labeling a country as part of the “Axis of Evil” does to international relations....

[mike777]

1) There is some data to indicate that Iran and its leaders believe we are in an "end of the world" time and actions to speed it up may be the destiny of the country.
2) The issue of Iran still being 10 years away from nukes is very confusing. It took the USA 3-4 years starting from scratch with 1940's technology. I assume Iran knows how to build a bomb and how the parts fit together. I thought freshman college kids know this stuff. All they need to do is buy, steal or make the parts and put it together I thought. 10 years what? are they taking long lunch breaks?
3) I thought we had the WMD discussion decades ago all it takes is a few bucks, a few PHD's and a little time and there is alot of this cheap WMD that can me made?
4) There seems to be just a couple of schools of thought:
4a) We got it so it is ok for anyone else to get it and sell it to the sucide bombers.
4b) Lets talk and bring the UN in to talk some more. Talk about what?
4c) Preemptive strike to delay/kill them before they delay/kill us? That just makes them pissed off at us but everyone already hates us so?
5) Everyone seems to be worried about nukes but what about killer/cheap nanobots, computer viruses, etc. We all seem to be fighting the last war not getting ready for the next one, oh well.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 11 2006, 04:16 PM, said:

1) There is some data to indicate that Iran and its leaders believe we are in an "end of the world" time and actions to speed it up may be the destiny of the country.

Have you taken a good look at the idiot currently inhabiting the White House?

There's an old comment about people living in glass houses...

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 11 2006, 04:16 PM, said:

2) The issue of Iran still being 10 years away from nukes is very confusing. It took the USA 3-4 years starting from scratch with 1940's technology. I assume IRan knows how to build a bomb and how the parts fit together. I thought freshman college kids know this stuff. All they need to do is buy, steal or make the parts and put it together I thought. 10 years what? are they taking long lunch breaks?

I hate to be so pedantic to drag $ in to the equation, however, I suspect that Iran is constrained by the amount of money that they can invest in a crash nuclear weapons program. There is a big difference between knowing how to build a gaseous diffusion system and have an operational factory churning out enriched uranium.

I just googled the cost of the Manhattan Project. From what I can tell, the cost of the Manhaattan project was roughly a third of the total US expenditure on tanks during the entire Second World War. When the US launched the Manhattan Project, we were marshalling the resources of an entire continent involved in a war of survival. Iran is a single country and a poor one at that. I readily agree that the world is substantially further along the technology curve. Balanced against this, no one is going to sell the Iranians the parts they need to get a nuke program off the ground. Equally significant, the Iranians are being forced to build all their factories in hardened underground bunkers. I suspect that this significantly increases costs.

[pbleighton]

"Please resist the temptation to take everything personally as relating either to you or the US"

I didn't take it personally. What in my post makes you think I did?

I merely asked you some questions, which, in your long reply, you completely failed to address.

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 11 2006, 04:16 PM, said:

4) There seems to be just a couple of schools of thought:
4a) We got it so it is ok for anyone else to get it and sell it to the sucide bombers.
4b) Lets talk and bring the UN in to talk some more. Talk about what?
4c) Preemptive strike to delay/kill them before they delay/kill us? That just makes them pissed off at us but everyone already hates us so?

I remember back in the good old days when the US was (supposedly) committed to non-proliferation. Unfortunately, once you decide that its OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons - the US, England, France, Russia, China, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan - it becomes a lot more difficult to tell other countries that they can't have nuclear weapons.

It becomes especially difficult when the US government starts a unilateral policy of regime change. Personally, as I compare the US policies towards Iraq and North Korea there seems to be a very clear incentive for leaders to be developing nuclear weapons as quickly as they can. They need these for self defense against the US.

Oh yeah... On the whole Pakistan front. Pakistan is known to have a nuclear weapons program, extant nuclear weapons, and quite lax controls over this technology. When you play your little war games, you really might want to consider the impact of a US atatck on Iran on the Pakistani regime. This attack could very well shut down the Iranian nuclear program but causing weapons to hemorage out of a radicalized Pakistan.

[asdfg2k]

See, I told you there were opinions on the article.

[Al_U_Card]

Impact, on Apr 10 2006, 09:40 PM, said:

Tom Lehrer circa 1965:-

Be prepared, that's the Boy Scout's marching song
Be prepared, as through life you march along
Be prepared to hold your liquor pretty well
Don't write naughty words on walls if you can't spell

If you're looking for adventure
of a new and different kind
and you come across a Girl-Scout
who is similarly inclined

Don't be nervous
don't be flustered
don't be scared
BE PREPARED!

a childhood memory....

[Al_U_Card]

When Quebec had separatist terrorism in the 60's, a book was written about the eventual separation of the province from Canada. In it, the U.S. invaded immediately to "secure" its border from the "unknown" and potentially"communist" leaning neophyte government. The supposition being that they didn't have enough money to run the "country" of Quebec and would turn to Russia for funding (like Cuba).

"Who ya gonna call, when they come for you? Bad boys, Bad boys."

Hitler and the Rhineland, then Sudetenland then Austria........look back and learn...

[keylime]

To me this is very simple. The U.S. may idly stand by and do much of nothing, but Israel can't and won't.

Admittedly, this is a very difficult subject for me to discuss, considering my experiences in that region of the world are still vivid to me, even after being removed by 11 years.