Panetta: Iran will not be allowed nukes

Great Debates
41

You have to remember nukes are considered to be the ultimate taboo. You can kill one person with a nuke and it would be seen as much worse as killing 1,000 with a conventional bomb.

And it’s not only nukes. The military long developed a weapon that would look like a gun and what it actually does is shine lights to blind people. This is especially effective against troops using night google technology.

But it was banned as being cruel? I’m sure nations still develop and have it, but how is it cruel to blind some one but less cruel to kill them? I don’t know but that is how the logic flows

42

It’s a bluff and an ineffective one. The irony is, of course, if Bush were still in power the Iranians could not be sure it were a bluff and it may have been effective. Swings and roundabouts.

43

Disagree.

I don’t want Iran being a world power anymore than the White House does. It’s just not acceptable. Not for the U.S.

44

Certainly not a bluff. No way will the US openly allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

45

Bush’s military adventurism helped push Iran down this track. And Bush did say the same thing, and it was equally ineffective because it was just as obvious that it was a bluff. The U.S. military was tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Iranians knew it was in no position to back up the rhetoric.

46

I guess you don’t remember the last war in Iraq.

47

I don’t know that there is a practical way of stopping them. Delay, yes, but stop? No.

If NK can get nukes, Iran certainly can.

48

The “practical” way of stopping them is all-out war. If we went to war with Iran, I’d have no problem signing up and possibly laying down my life.

Just so you know, I’m not a crazy right winger by any stretch of the imagination. I was a big Obama supporter in 2008 and plan to vote for him again in 2012, and generally think that the Republican party is ass-backwards a lot of the time, especially on social issues.

But I agree with Obama that military action against Iran is a definite option, and in fact, may be the only option.

ETA: If we openly went to war with North Korea, I’d gladly do that too. Just because we are allowing North Korea to have nukes doesn’t mean we should allow Iran to have them.

ETA again: That being said, I think Iraq was a huge fuck-up, and I wouldn’t go to war with Iran unless they actually demonstrated use of a nuke (like north korea has done)

49

Not only is that not practical, it’s not wise. The US will not go to war with Iran over this. In fact, I would take a nuclear armed Iran any day over a US occupied Iran.

We’re more likely to try a so-called surgical strike, but that’s wouldn’t be effective in this case. Iran’s nuclear program is decentralized and not really vulnerable to that type of action. Again, it could delay, but not stop them.

Don’t take this personally, but your willingness to enlist in the war is not a valid argument in favor of it.

50

So, you agree that it unacceptable to go to war to prevent a country from developing nuclear weapons. Going to war against a country that actually uses a nuclear weapon is an entirely separate question.

51

I agree that we (the U.S.) should go to war to prevent another nation from developing nuclear weapons, just as we have against the U.K., France, the U.S.S.R., China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

52

Of course we have to say it’s “unacceptable” for Iran to get nukes. Of course we have to say that “nothing is off the table” (although that’s not something we say unless someone actually asks if we’re going to nuke them). Just like was continue to say that it’s “unacceptable” for NK to continue their nuclear program. That’s the tough talk of the big guy in a negotiation. We’ll figure out some way to justify not actually preventing them from doing so later if we have to. But for now, it’s stomp as loudly as you can while waiving a big stick around knowing you’re not really going to use the stick.

53

If you’re going to make an empty threat wouldn’t it be far better to make it in private? Probably just as useless but at least you don’t have the world as witness.

Israel is the wild card here. It has no more intention of allowing Iran to develop a nuclear capability uninterrupted than the US would allow a nuclear and hostile Cuba.

54

They’ve never been asked.

All states with ICBMs are technically threatening all other states with nuclear attack. None would ever say “we won’t use nukes.” The entire point of possessing nuclear weapons is to ensure people know you are willing to use them.

And quite reasonably so, since in fact that threat has been made - hell, I doubt the Chinese have a policy of no first use, so that’s a threat. It’s meant to be a threat. Possessing nukes is a threat.

55

Being blind in an area where there is no one to help you is a worse sentence than being killed off. Lots of things are worse than a quick death.

56

It’s like the square bullets thing.

57

Iran having nuclear weapons is not a big deal, to be honest. Pakistan is probably a more dangerous country with nuclear weapons because it is intrinsically less stable than Iran, Pakistan is almost a fictitious country. Further, all of the terrorist activity in and around Pakistan means its nuclear weapons are in close proximity to elements that might be willing to use them in a terrorist attack.

North Korea is arguably more stable politically than Pakistan, as goofy as that may seem, they have had the same ruling dynasty since the 1940s, we’ll see how that goes going forward. While North Korea has/does ship weapons to terrorists North Korea is honestly so isolated that I don’t believe there is much risk of them ever sending their precious nuclear warheads overseas to some terrorist group.

But anyway, if crazy North Korea isn’t going to nuke people I can guarantee you that Iran won’t. Yes, we all know Iran is ran by Islamic fundamentalists, but I’ve seen no indication they genuinely would be happy to have their entire country wiped out by a nuclear exchange. If North Korea or Iran were to ever use nuclear weapons it would be essentially in response to a full scale invasion, and even then they would probably only launch them after trying to bluster/threaten the invading army out of their territory first. I think at that point, when the respective regimes saw their end was nigh, they’d potentially just say “fuck it” and launch, since they wouldn’t care to take the rest of their country with them at that point.

For that reason it really isn’t in the strategic interests of the United States to expend vast military resources to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

I will say if I’ve learned one thing from Afghanistan and Iraq, I do know if I was tasked with coming up for a military plan to end Iran’s weapons program it would take a very different form from the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. I can think of some ways we could do economically.

What first comes to mind is a full scale invasion, just like with Iraq I do not believe Iran’s armed forces would be able to protect the country very long. They would quickly be wiped out of the field. The actual goals of the invasion would be to destroy Iran’s conventional military, its command and control, and to destroy all of the nuclear facilities (unlike say, chemical weapons labs the nuclear facilities are all well known, albeit very hardened and dispersed so a single air strike wouldn’t end them, but with ground presence they could be destroyed.) After that, I would tactically retreat from Iranian territory.

At that point I would lock down absolute air superiority, and begin communicating with the President of Iran (whoever that might be.) I would tell the President of Iran that we would pay full reparations for any damaged infrastructure, this would be in direct monetary payments. Further, I would pledge payment of $50bn/year for 10 years that Iran’s government could use to do whatever it wished. From them I would only ask full and unrestricted access by nuclear inspections teams in perpetuity. If the President of Iran did not agree to this using my uncontested air superiority I would proceed to destroy every power plant in Iran, all the water treatment facilities in every major Iranian city, and would endeavor to destroy their major port facilities in the Persian Gulf and would essentially mine them so heavily as to make them unusable. Then I would simply monitor the situation and make sure they didn’t try anything crazy like try to restart their nuclear program (I am not sure they would be able to at that point) and respond as necessary. Since in that scenario I would not permit Iran to develop a significant military I would essentially have perpetual flyover capability. I suspect eventually the government would fall and be replaced by someone willing to negotiate a return to the 21st century for their country.

58

If that was true no nation would have signed any nuclear non-proliferation treaty, since they’d want nukes of their own regardless of the cost. An implied promise of the nuclear non-proliferation effort is that non-nuclear countries won’t be nuked, because otherwise refraining from acquiring nukes is insane.

They’d never believe it, and we’d never follow through.

And welcome to a 21st century where America and Americans are constantly being attacked by literal legions of terrorists. Most of whom won’t be motivated by religion, but by the fact that you killed millions of their people. It would not be remotely “economical”. Although it’s a very American plan, based on the philosophy that as non-Americans Iranians aren’t human and can be casually killed like vermin; and that as non-humans they don’t have feelings like real people (aka Americans) and won’t be driven to seek revenge for the piles of corpses in the streets. It also suffers from the problem that there wouldn’t be a government left to negotiate with, and certainly no one who could negotiate with America without being killed by his own people. And keeping your inspection teams alive would be a challenge.

59

Der, hate to break it to you, but you’re an American.
Would you like to tell us why you think foreigners aren’t human?

60

But hardly a normal one.