Not if they have nukes; they’d use them on the invading army. Anyone would against an army they didn’t think they could defeat with conventional weapons.
This is something you made up, obviously.
Regards,
Shodan
As noted, that is quite inaccurate. In fact, barring a brief, abortive two year flirtation with a constitutional government in the Ottoman state in the 1870’s, Iran was the first country in the region to establish a functioning parliament. The Young Turk Revolution would follow it in 1908. Though the Iranian legislature would go through many vicissitudes as it struggled with the monarchy in the decades that followed, it always existed in one form or another. The Iranians have had more and more continuous experience with at least the trappings of democracy than any other state in the region and are well aware and proud of the fact. It’s a sad truth that it has been reduced to a manipulated veneer at various times - after the Pahlavi accession in 1925, again after 1953 coup, and then steadily squeezed by the theocrats after the 1979 Revolution. But the Iranians are well aware what pluralistic democracy is - they simply have been involved in a see-sawing struggle with various authoritarian forces since its inception.
Speaking as an atheist with some mild academic interest in the area, I disagree. But I’m no longer much interested in debating the point.
This really isn’t accurate. It is more correct to say that some Iranians want a theocracy, concentrated particularly in some elements of the lumpen proletariat and the pious bazaari. But that is hardly all of Iran. The 1979 Revolution was conducted by a complex stew of social forces. It was just to the great misfortune of the left ( both secularists and their left-liberal religious allies ) that they were comprehensively outmaneuvered by the radical theocrats in the immediate post-revolutionary period of 1979-1982.
Who are you including in your confession?
None of those countries are crazy, either. And frankly, even if they were, it wouldn’t make a difference. The USSR had nukes under the truly nutso Stalin, and China had nukes under the even nastier Mao, and you’ll notice nothing untoward ever happened. The only problems with MAD right now are that North Korea could launch in response to an invasion (but there wouldn’t be an invasion anyway), or Pakistan could somehow lose a nuke to a terrorist group (but their government is in much better command of the situation than we like to think, so it’s not likely.)
The question isn’t whether it would be right. The question is that the US would have to respond instantaneously if it wants to maintain a credible MAD-based deterrent. So it would. An invasion would give the regime a month, and that’s about thirty days and twenty-two hours too long. So regardless of ethics, there would be an immediate nuclear retaliation. And, as people have already pointed out, nobody would try to come to Iran’s defence.
This is utterly bigoted claptrap. There already are heavily Muslim, democratic countries. Turkey is a stable democracy. Tunisia’s government was freely elected. As I recall, Indonesia is democratic these days. Then there are a bunch of other countries with imperfect democracy: Egypt, where there’s a democratic government that’s having to fight with the military over control; Lebanon, where there’s a democratic government but various sectarian militias have too much power for it to govern effectively; and a bunch of countries where there’s a king who overrides the parliament on a regular basis. Even Iran itself had a freely elected president until Ahmadinejad stole the last election, although the president was subordinate to the theocrats and only controlled domestic policy. And it was a big deal when the election got stolen, even though Ahmadinejad probably would have won anyway! The government had to put down massive protests in the streets. Remember that?
Unlike Americans post-Civil Rights Movement, Muslims in the Middle East have been willing to march and die in the streets for democracy. Democracy is very much “in their psyche”.
POTUS: How many cruise missiles do we have in theatre?
JCOS: We have N cruise missiles, sir.
POTUS: Ok, I want all of those launched within the next 12 hours, then start shipping all of our remaining stocks from everywhere else in that direction. Also, I want every aircraft in that hemisphere on it’s way to Kuwait within 12 hours and every carrier capable of mission on it’s way within 48 hours. I want a plan of deployment for everything we’ve got on my desk by 9am tomorrow. Gentlemen, you have work to do.
…and I forgot Iraq. And that Libya had its first free election today. You’ll take my point.
A nuclear attack by Iran, anywhere in the world, would be met with a nuclear response. I am sure of it. The whole country? I don’t know, but it would be a nightmare.
I don’t think Iran would do a nuclear strike, though. They aren’t ‘insane’, contrary to the OP’s assertion. They want a bomb 1) because Israel has it. 1.1) because the US has it. 2) because India has it, 3) Pakistan 4) China 5) Russia. Something like that. “First strike” doesn’t make the list IMHO. The most effective thing we could do to persuade them to give up their nuclear program is to disarm Israel, a highly unlikely outcome. In Why Iran Should Get the Bomb, Kenneth N. Waltz makes the case that a nuclear Iran would be the best thing for stability in the ME, as it would correct the current destabilizing balance of power.
Any merit to a pro-proliferation stance? Or do people seriously believe Iran would launch a first strike?
But how sweet would it be, and how much “street cred” (as was mentioned up thread) would come about from utterly obliterating the enemy who nuked you with non nuclear means? Seriously, our Air Force has the capability of city-to-rubble conversion, as does the Navy (come on up through the Arabian Sea with some big boats), such that we’d never have to even set foot in the place.
I think that’s a way to be seen as the responsible adult in the room while still accomplishing the same goal of smacking the little kids who misused their nukes.
The threat would be more effective.
“We will withhold nuclear retaliation at the moment, but we do intend to destroy the Iranian regime in response to this crime against Humanity. We would therefore like to put the Iranian people on notice that should there be another incident, we will wipe their nation from the face of the Earth.”
Then see how quickly the mullahs start swinging from the minarets.
That is an Epic Statement, and I would so love to hear it said by a US President, but I don’t know if Obama has enough podium oomph to give it the right effect.
The reason why you need to instantly reply in a MAD situation is because if you hesitate, the enemy’s first strike might be able to neutralize or reduce your ability to respond. This would only apply to a power with a large nuclear arsenal, not a rogue state that managed to slip a single nuke into New Jersey in a shipping crate.
Using a nuclear weapon for no other reason than essentially revenge would be so spectacularly wrong, I can’t imagine any leader of a western democracy seriously considering it. If nothing else, it would completely piss away the massive international support we would have. Maybe if Washington DC got nuked and there were serious chain-of-command issues, maybe mistakes would be made, but I seriously doubt there is any sort of rational thought process that would lead to “they nuked us, so we’ve gotta nuke them back on principle.”
Also, while we’re piling onto this whopper, I’d point out that Indonesia, which has something like 40% of the world’s Muslim population, has a fairly long (albeit somewhat troubled) history of democratic institutions.
The term you’re looking for is “retaliation”, not “revenge”, spectacularly wrong as it is. But no, the logic of MAD doesn’t work unless it ends with annihilation — the second-strike capacity stuff is just a fun extension of MAD created by improvements in technology.
It’s not a “confession”; I consistently opposed the war and occupation. Blood is on the hands of anyone who supported it.
Annihilation of régime, SM, not necessarily of the nation-state. Granted, in Iran’s case, that might entail mass civilian casualties.
And this is in GD’s?
My goodness… :rolleyes:
Retaliation is a less loaded term perhaps, but it’s the same thing. I don’t know how you have it in your head that MAD is some sort of inviolable pillar of our foreign policy-- I don’t think it’s EVER been applied to a country that wasn’t Russia and it probably isn’t even current official doctrine right now. It’s certainly never been official policy with regard to rogue nations without any nuclear stockpiles to speak of.
GreasyJack is the only one in this thread talking any sense. There’s no reason to think that the concept of MAD requires nuclear weapons. Like he says, against another superpower, excessive use of nuclear weapons and massive civilian casualties are the only way of knocking out their offensive capabilities in a timely manner. Against Iran? We can deliver conventional weapons with cruise missiles, we can have bombers on target in a matter of minutes (like, an hour). Three hours after the nuclear strike, anything related to nuclear weapons that we know about would be smoldering. 48 hours after the strike, anything resembling a weapon would be smoldering. 30 days after the strike, the entire Iranian government would be smoldering, and we’d be occupying ourselves another country. Is that not assured destruction?
It is, in fact, assured destruction, and no nuclear weapons are required. Since we can do it without massive civilian casualties, we most certainly would.
I hope you’re right.