# Obama being tested-How Should he Respond? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2009, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947 "2009-03-10T13:03:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/41 "2009-03-11T02:40:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That’s why you use threats to deter Iran from using them. If they think you seriously will do it, they’ll drop their program. I don’t care if they have nukes. Iran has the same right to protect itself as everybody else. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/42 "2009-03-11T03:30:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And welcome to economic collapse when the whole world embargoes us. And the destruction of what reputation we have left, since we’ll have proven ourselves to be far, far worse than the Iranians. You really have to be keeping up with current events, the whole world is sliding into a economic depression even without those geniuses in peking starting an unnessesary flare up, if you think the world is simply going to embargo the only potential market for their wares at this time, because of military action however executed, against Iran. Obama is new, he even had Hilary state clearly that the economic state of the world was their only concern regarding china, and everything else was secondary, no human rights, no kyoto , nothing contentious. If anything , they probably would have gotten a more favourable hearing regarding pulling out inteliegence gathering platforms, had they not pulled this shit. Hey he even told moscow that he would pull out the shield in return for a more docile relationship with moscow and regardless of what you might have thought of the bush administration, do you honestly believe that the obama admin is just going to simply continue to antagonize Iran and beligerently threaten them, not that I am sure that you even said or implied that, but its almost like you have not moved forward with the rest of us. Apologies in advance if I have misattributed anything. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/43 "2009-03-11T03:43:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Pointless. To semi-quote a series I like, I’m not interested in relieving their toilet paper shortage. Because that’s about the only effect dropping stuff like that would have. I dunno… It might trigger Dear Leader to have an aneurysm. That wouldn’t be all that bad. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/44 "2009-03-11T03:53:07Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > You really have to be keeping up with current events, the whole world is sliding into a economic depression even without those geniuses in peking starting an unnessesary flare up, if you think the world is simply going to embargo the only potential market for their wares at this time, because of military action however executed, against Iran. That’s exactly the same logic that some people used to claim that Germany wouldn’t attack it’s biggest trading partner, France. A nation that goes around nuking other countries that don’t knuckle under is far scarier than an economic crisis. Even the Soviet Union never did that. > [@Declan](#): > > Hey he even told moscow that he would pull out the shield in return for a more docile relationship with moscow and regardless of what you might have thought of the bush administration, do you honestly believe that the obama admin is just going to simply continue to antagonize Iran and beligerently threaten them, not that I am sure that you even said or implied that, but its almost like you have not moved forward with the rest of us. No, I don’t think Obama will, but I wasn’t responding to Obama. I was responding to **mswas** ’s recommendation that we premptively nuke Iranian cities. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/45 "2009-03-11T04:22:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No such nuclear war is posible. > > Even it were possible, using nukes is evil, full stop. So what? Morality is meaningless in war. In war anything that hurts the enemy is appropriate (and yes, especially ones that take out hundreds of thousands of civilians–less civilians are less manpower for the enemy, civilians are just as much a military asset as tanks and bullets.) The only real logical objection I’ve ever had with nuclear weapons is they have the real potential to do more or equal material harm to the country that uses them as they do to the target country–in a world where any nuclear action could theoretically lead to a nuclear response. They are also difficult to use tactically if you have ground forces in the area; although there has been plenty of research done on tactical nukes and I’m certain that technology could easily be perfected if not for the politics. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/46 "2009-03-11T04:24:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t care if they have nukes. Iran has the same right to protect itself as everybody else. International relations is a zero-sum game. There is only so much power and influence in the world; the more states that have nuclear weapons the less power and influence we have. I’m of a mind that we’re currently looking at a sweeping change to a multi-polar world made up of several great powers (not dissimilar to the situation pre-WWI) but how long we can maintain our current hegemony and the relative scale of our power in the new multi-polar world can indeed be impacted by us trying to limit or just delay the ability of other states to gain significant amounts of power and influence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/47 "2009-03-11T04:26:14Z")
Morality has more meaning in war than at any other time. If morality has no value in war, then war itself has no moral value. But we’re not even talking about war. We’re talking about preemptive genocide. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/48 "2009-03-11T04:27:45Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > International relations is a zero-sum game. There is only so much power and influence in the world; the more states that have nuclear weapons the less power and influence we have. > > I’m of a mind that we’re currently looking at a sweeping change to a multi-polar world made up of several great powers (not dissimilar to the situation pre-WWI) but how long we can maintain our current hegemony and the relative scale of our power in the new multi-polar world can indeed be impacted by us trying to limit or just delay the ability of other states to gain significant amounts of power and influence. Our current hegemony is part of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/49 "2009-03-11T04:28:33Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > So what? Morality is meaningless in war. That’s the kind of attitude that got Germany smashed twice last century. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > International relations is a zero-sum game. There is only so much power and influence in the world; the more states that have nuclear weapons the less power and influence we have.. Even assuming that’s true, so what ? I see no evidence that our playing empire has done us anything but net harm. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/50 "2009-03-11T04:28:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I dunno… It might trigger Dear Leader to have an aneurysm. That wouldn’t be all that bad. Exactly, he wants to play games, oh we’ll play games. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/51 "2009-03-11T04:59:20Z")
No way we should nuke Iran. At worst we(or Israel) could launch a conventional strike against their nuclear facilities. That doesn’t sound too appealing to me either. Nobody wants Iran to have nukes and they did sign the non-proliferation treaty, so they shouldn’t be trying to enrich uranium. I think both the U.S. and Iran would be better off if Obama gave Iran the carrot, bolstering the credibility of Iranian moderates, so they get in power. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/52 "2009-03-11T05:17:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > You would think this would be a tautology, wouldn’t you… Only if we had intermediate steps of reasoning. But since starting a nuclear war is, well…, starting a nuclear war, it doesn’t really get as far as a tautology, which should eventually come back on itself, not immediately. It’s not easy putting food on the family. Is our children learning to read? ‘One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the War on Terror.’ - 09/06/2006 ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/53 "2009-03-11T05:31:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Morality has more meaning in war than at any other time. If morality has no value in war, then war itself has no moral value. > > But we’re not even talking about war. We’re talking about preemptive genocide. No war is morally defensible, war is an abomination against mankind and there has never been a moral war. For that reason I have always been of the firm opinion that the only way to prosecute a war is in a manner that will bring about its ending as swiftly and with as few deaths as possible no matter the means. Once you’ve entered into war you have basically thrown morality aside, and thus no action you take in warfare is moral and since all military action is immoral I’m not particularly persuaded that some are “more or less” moral than others. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/54 "2009-03-11T05:50:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Our current hegemony is part of the problem. Hegemony or a unipolar political system is actually a state in which there are fewer wars than any other. The problem is we’re losing our hegemony; at the height of power a system with a true hegemon will experience relatively little conflict. The most conflict is definitely in multi-polar systems in which the great powers are fighting innumerable minor wars and proxy wars to vie for position. Although arguably the rare bi-polar world is also quite stable although you can see proxy wars (but not direct wars) between the two apex powers. However most political scientists really only view the Cold War world as a true example of a bipolar system so it’s hard to really say for sure that what we know about such a system would necessarily be valid in other circumstances. In any case our hegemony is no more a problem than the whole system of international relations. You have many powers that all want to be top dog, eventually one of them becomes top dog–many people die in the process. For awhile the top dog sits at the top fat and happy while the lesser powers try to become powerful enough to unseat the top dog. Eventually the top dog falls from power and many many people die trying to become new “top dog.” Sometimes this happens and the period of multi-polarity is brief, but usually it takes hundreds of years in which you are looking at multi-polar states constantly locked in conflict. Arguably most of Western history after the fall of Rome can be seen as trying to sort out who was going to be the next hegemon–never fully settled until after WWII. (I don’t actually ascribe to this and view a few distinct periods of hegemony in Western history prior to WWII.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/55 "2009-03-11T05:53:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s the kind of attitude that got Germany smashed twice last century. No, dramatic strategic over extension got Germany smashed, not the “morality” of the manner in which they waged war. > [@](#): > > Even assuming that’s true, so what ? I see no evidence that our playing empire has done us anything but net harm. So you’d argue it would have created a more powerful United States in the present had we never conquered all the land held by natives? Had we never forced Mexico to sell us California (and all its mineral riches?) Hard for me to buy. Arguably some of our 20th century imperialism was over extension, but I’ve yet to see a burgeoning great power self-restrict its acquisitions. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/56 "2009-03-11T23:34:14Z")
Re: China: the Chinese do not aspire to be a siperpower,they only want to be recognized as a regional power. Our spying o them is disrespectful-how would we like it , if a Chinese spy ship parked itseld 5 miles off San Diego? So, I would say that backing off would make a lot of sense. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/57 "2009-03-12T00:44:57Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Re: China: the Chinese do not aspire to be a siperpower,they only want to be recognized as a regional power. Personal experience tells me this is not so. Their spying is ubiquitous, and was the primary threat when I was in the defence sector. This was backed up by firewall logs etc. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/58 "2009-03-12T01:53:45Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > The difference being that the wars required continued political support and loss of native lives. > > This, not at all. No British, Australian, American, Canadian, etc, lives need be lost. > Which isn’t to say I condone/agree, I just don’t think the political backlash would be as bad as you think. Keep in mind, much of the world **needs** the USA. Breadbasket and whatnot. Wow, you really have a terrible understanding of the rest of the world. An unprovoked nuclear attack would ruin the reputation of the United States for at least two generations. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/59 "2009-03-12T08:07:09Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Wow, you really have a terrible understanding of the rest of the world. > > An unprovoked nuclear attack would ruin the reputation of the United States for at least two generations. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2009, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947/60 "2009-03-12T09:53:45Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No war is morally defensible, war is an abomination against mankind and there has never been a moral war. For that reason I have always been of the firm opinion that the only way to prosecute a war is in a manner that will bring about its ending as swiftly and with as few deaths as possible no matter the means. Once you’ve entered into war you have basically thrown morality aside, and thus no action you take in warfare is moral and since all military action is immoral I’m not particularly persuaded that some are “more or less” moral than others. That’s just ridiculous. First, of course there are moral wars; such as defending yourself against an invasion. Second, the claim that “that the only way to prosecute a war is in a manner that will bring about its ending as swiftly and with as few deaths as possible” is in itself a moral statement. And third, **of course** some wars and some ways of fighting them are more moral than others. Are you really going to claim that there’s no moral difference between fighting off an invasion while attempting to minimize casualties and treating prisoners humanely, and a genocidal war of aggression where as many people as possible are taken alive to be tortured to death ? > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No, dramatic strategic over extension got Germany smashed, not the “morality” of the manner in which they waged war. First, they fought those wars in no small part due to a lack of morality. Second, they in no small part **lost** those wars due to a lack of morality. Such as being so unpleasant that even Stalin looked like a better deal to the Soviet citizenry. In general, over both world wars their dismissive attitude towards moral behavior created enemies and helped impel them towards self destructive behavior. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > So you’d argue it would have created a more powerful United States in the present had we never conquered all the land held by natives? Had we never forced Mexico to sell us California (and all its mineral riches?) Hard for me to buy. I said “playing empire”, and that wasn’t playing empire. That was conquest and genocide, which are more effective if even more disgusting. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Arguably some of our 20th century imperialism was over extension, but I’ve yet to see a burgeoning great power self-restrict its acquisitions. The fact that you don’t see imperialistic nations refrain from it doesn’t make such behavior any less self destructive. Besides, if they refrained from it, they wouldn’t be imperialists in the first place. > [@Quartz](#): > > Cite? Come on. Asking for a cite for a prediction about an unlikely future hypothetical like that is unrealistic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-being-tested-how-should-he-respond/488947.md?page=2)