Hillary said we'd use nuclear arms against Iran in some circumstances...

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Airblairxxx]
Again . . . I will say what I said: That every indication was that Iran doesn’t have nukes.
[/quote]

Well, I guess I will elaborate on what I posted then in case I wasn’t that clear. There are some indications, like Iran’s pattern of attempts over the last few years to hide evidence from and/or being less than forthright with the IAEA, that are indeed indications that Iran has something to hide wrt its nuclear program. What exactly that is, is the subject of another thread. My point is merely that it’s too pat to simply state that the NIE says “IRAN DOESN’T HAVE NUKES.” or even that “every” indication points towards Iran having a 100% legit program that it’d have no reason to hide.

That’s my only point on that issue, but you can have the last word.

[QUOTE=Airblairxxx]

What gets me is that as president in a hypothetical nuclear war between Iran and Israel, she would insert the USA into a regional conflict on the other side of the world.
[/quote]

That’s a long-standing US policy. If our allies are attacked severely enough, we will defend them. That principle, for example, formed the core of NATO’s strategic power.

Of course it was a silly hypothetical. If Iran ever attacked Israel with WMD, they’d start WWIII and be reduced to the largest glass parking lot in the world. All before the US could give out launch codes. Essentially Hillary’s comments, I think, should be taken as simply reaffirming that she can be tough on Iran and that if Iran were to attack our allies, they’d have to deal with us.

[QUOTE=Airblairxxx]
Hey, Iran knows we have nukes. Shitloads of 'em. If Iran can be deterred, they already are. If they can’t, do you honestly think that HRC threatening to out-crazy them will make one bit of difference?
[/quote]

It could. There’s a difference between Iran knowing that we have nukes, and Iran knowing that we would possibly use them. That’s part of the calculus of deterrence, after all.

[QUOTE=Airblairxxx]

Iran will come at them via their proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. This nuclear deterrence idea of hers will obligate us to extend our military into the region on a more permanent basis than Iraq. That will NOT make us popular; it will cost a lot of money; it is yet another stupid idea.
[/QUOTE]

Well, Hezbollah, almost definitely not Hamas. And there’s no real obligation to extend our military anywhere. As you point out, the most likely threats are “asymmetric” and can’t be dealt with by conventional forces. And we can easily toss nukes from submarines without ever putting a single boot on the ground.

All in all, Iran is attempting to exert its regional influence. This makes a number of nations worried. HRC is attempting to position the US as part of a loose aggregate of states, in and out of the region, who have something to lose by seeing an ascendant Iran (in its current political form, at least). I think that, if anything, that’ll buy us some good will. But YMMV.

And as I said, you’re certainly entitled to the last word if you want it.

22

[QUOTE=newcrasher]
An American president saying he/she would never “obliterate” innocent women and children under any circumstances would be a refreshing change of pace at this point.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder where we’d be right now if a few innocent women and children hadn’t been obliterated along the way.

23

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Saying she’d never use nukes under any circumstances is worse, by any reasonable standard.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it has to be either-or. Between “I won’t hesitate to use nukes” and “I would never use nukes” are a whole lotta policy alternatives.

24

[QUOTE=Airblairxxx]
What HRC said was pretty damn stupid. It was also blatantly manipulative.

It was stupid because every indication we have says that IRAN DOESN’T HAVE NUKES.
[/QUOTE]

But she was asked what she would do if they DID get nukes. It wasn’t her fault that she was asked a blatantly manipulative question. She gave a perfectly good answer, and if Obama wants to make sure he doesn’t get elected, he can say that nukes are unconditionally off the table when he gets asked that question.

25

[QUOTE=Airblairxxx]
Iran will come at them via their proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. This nuclear deterrence idea of hers will obligate us to extend our military into the region on a more permanent basis than Iraq. That will NOT make us popular; it will cost a lot of money; it is yet another stupid idea.
[/QUOTE]

Additionally, extending our nuclear umbrella over hostile nations (e.g. Saudi Arabia, the font of Islamic Fundamentalist ideology) makes us look like saps. Nobody respects saps, and that goes double in that part of the world.

26

This just looks like one of those ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ questions.

If she says she’ll use nukes, people bitch about her being a psychotic mass murderer who wants to kill babies & puppies.

If she says she won’t use nukes at all, people bitch about her being a little pansy peacenik who isn’t fit to defend the country.

Everyone knows that nukes are a last resort and that if we’re using them then there’s some serious shit going on. No one, especially a politician trying to get elected by a non-religious right base, is going to say ‘never’ or ‘always’ or any other absolute. It’s too easy to pin it to them.

27

[QUOTE=John Mace]
But she was asked what she would do if they DID get nukes. It wasn’t her fault that she was asked a blatantly manipulative question. She gave a perfectly good answer, and if Obama wants to make sure he doesn’t get elected, he can say that nukes are unconditionally off the table when he gets asked that question.
[/QUOTE]

He was asked that question twice this morning on the Today Show and on GMA and both times his answer was that he would use force prudent to the situation and that included nukes. What my biggest gripe about HRC’s response was her use of the word “Obliterate”. It’s not a very nice term and leave little room for misinterpretation. If she wants to flex her muscles in this way let her do it with good judgement and running a smart campaign.

28

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Additionally, extending our nuclear umbrella over hostile nations (e.g. Saudi Arabia, the font of Islamic Fundamentalist ideology) makes us look like saps. Nobody respects saps, and that goes double in that part of the world.
[/QUOTE]

Why does it have to be that comlplicated? If Iran nukes anyone*, we’ll nuke them. We don’t have to list the countries Iran is and is not allowed to nuke based on how we feel about their form of government.

*except maybe North Korea

29

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
He was asked that question twice this morning on the Today Show and on GMA and both times his answer was that he would use force prudent to the situation and that included nukes. What my biggest gripe about HRC’s response was her use of the word “Obliterate”. It’s not a very nice term and leave little room for misinterpretation. If she wants to flex her muscles in this way let her do it with good judgement and running a smart campaign.
[/QUOTE]

I missed that. “Obliterate” is an inflamatory word, and she shouldn’t have used it. But the basic premise is still what mainstream American policy has always been, and I don’t think Obama and her are really in any fundamental disagreement.

30

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
What my biggest gripe about HRC’s response was her use of the word “Obliterate”. It’s not a very nice term and leave little room for misinterpretation.
[/QUOTE]

Are we seriously complaining that our politicians are not obtuse enough for us?

In anycase, I think the word “obliterate” was chosen specifically to make it clear that she was talking about a MAD type strategy. And of course the point of MAD is to make it clear to the other side that you will “obliterate” them if they make the first move.

31

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I missed that. “Obliterate” is an inflamatory word, and she shouldn’t have used it. But the basic premise is still what mainstream American policy has always been, and I don’t think Obama and her are really in any fundamental disagreement.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t either. It’s a frustrating endeavor listening to the amount of bickering going on in the last 36 hours. Status quo I guess.

32

She SHOULD have said she would instead send them puppies and kittens (and not WAR KITTENS!) instead. Of course, even then I’m sure the Obama faithful on the board would finds something to ding her on this one ('She is going to send them puppies! And kittens! Why not flowers instead?? Huh? She IS A MONSTER!!! :mad: !!!).

I agree the ‘obliterate’ comment was gratuitous and unnecessary. I’m pretty sure that Iran is capable of doing the math as to what the probable result would be if they fucked up so badly that we actually DID use nukes against them (as highly improbable as that would be) and didn’t need it spelled out.

However…come on guys. She is a friggin politician! In an election year! Lets try and keep it real here, ehe?

-XT

33

As others upthread have stated, “obliterate,” just isn’t the most responsible fashion to describe our nuclear policy. Of course we have them, and of course we’re willing to use them if absolutely necessary, but they are truly only appropriate for the most dire situations.

There are much more, “PC,” ways to couch our policy, and if nothing else, detente towards the population of Iran should be a key goal of the upcoming presidential term.

If she had made this blunder in office, it would be nearly as alienating, unnecessary, and counterproductive as including Iran in the, “axis of evil.”

Here’s hoping she doesn’t receive the nomination.

34

So, would it really be possible for a President to take nukes “off the table”? I mean, Presidents don’t even seem able to rule out tax increases. Read HW’s lips. If, for whatever the reason, a President said we’d never use nukes, would anybody act out of complete belief that we wouldn’t? Or would Hiroshima and Nagasaki speak for themselves?

35

[QUOTE=newcrasher]
She has been going to church. Didn’t Jesus say if a man strikes you on one cheek to bomb the fuck out of them, women and kids, down to the lizards?

I may be misremembering it though.
[/QUOTE]

That was his dad, who had just been through a bad breakup and should be excused for having a bad day. A week later, he came back from Vegas and said that he was totally shitfaced when he wrote that part of the Tanakh.

36

Saying the U.S. would nuke Iran if Iran were to attack Israel is really not all that extreme by current standards. Is it?

37

Saying that there could be a remote possibility that we could certainly is not. She didn’t say if Iran attacked Israel we would nuke them into the stone age…just conceded that there were possible scenerios where we COULD use nukes against Iran.

-XT

38

Well, our best friend in the Middle East, on whose behalf Hillary is prepared to launch a nuclear strike, has been caught stealing our nuclear secrets again:

What a wonderful ally!

39

[QUOTE=spoke-]
Well, our best friend in the Middle East, on whose behalf Hillary is prepared to launch a nuclear strike, has been caught stealing our nuclear secrets again:

What a wonderful ally!
[/QUOTE]

C’mon! That just means they really like us! You know, like when you peek into your GF’s diary! :slight_smile:

40

Iran isn’t allowed to use nukes. What’s so hard about that to comprehend? If they want to be the example of the first nation in history to be deleted, then they can. If the great Persian nation wants to expire by firing a nuke that probably will even miss Tel Aviv, then that’s a risk they should take. However, we should obliterate them if it comes to that.

Not that Israel will wait. I am sure there are Israeli nukes targetting every Iranian city and military target.