Yes . . . and then what? “NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, ‘The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.’”
By this logic, it would be great if every country in the world had nuclear weapons. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Iran is a signatory to) is a major impediment to world peace!
The problem with the theory of mutually assured destruction is that it assumes that all parties involved are rational. This is a fatally flawed assumption. Inevitably, someone will use their nuclear weapons because they are indifferent to retaliation, they think God will protect them, they think they can be sneaky about it so blame will not be assigned to them or they are just plain insane. Such weapons will be the death of humanity.
The U.S. (a.k.a “all those arrogant superpowers”) has nuclear weapons and they didn’t prevent us from being attacked in 2001. If Al Qaeda gets hold of a nuclear weapon I have no doubt they will try to use it on us. I do not see our forces as a deterrent to them. Iran will not be imune to attack either. In fact, in attempting to build this arsenal they have drawn a target on themselves.
By the way, Iran was never colonized. It was successfully invaded by the U.S.S.R. in WW2, but the Soviets were pressured to withdraw after the war. Britain never colonized Iran.
The interests of the Iranian government include the elimination of Israel and “death to America” so it’s hard to be reassured that they would never use them or supply them to other parties.
Are the Israelis capable of pulling off a raid on the Iranian nuke factories? Assuming they pull another raid like the one on Iraq, do heir aircraft have the range to do this?
I don’t know what Iran has for an air-defense system, but I’m sure it isn’t too sophisticated.
Maybe we should make a deal with Sharon: blow up the Iranian’s reactors, and you can build 20,000 more houses in the West Bank!
And what makes you think an Israeli attack on Iran would be any less likely to escalate into a war than an American attack?
First let me bitch about the repaeted misuse of preemptiov, preemptive etc.
The intentional conflation of preventive and preemptive is an example of propaganda newspeak. In order for an attack on a country to be preemptive, the country must be poised to attack. For centuies this has been widely recognized as a legit casus belli. There’s no need for a special doctrine of preemption. What happened in Iraq and what is discussed here are preventive strikes. Prevention has not been widely recognized as a legit casus belli. In the past, preventive wars have been seen as wars of aggression.
That’s only about one in five people in the world.
repulsive proposal.
Frankenstein Monster, I think the criteria you have suggest for a government to be allowed to develop nuclear weapons is dangerous and illogical.
Obviously, I would support the complete elimination of ALL nuclear weapons in the world. I’m sure most other people would.
In the absence of that possibility, we must do the next best thing, which is preventing any MORE nuclear weapons from being developed.
In the absence of even that, we must do the next best thing, which is to prevent nuclear weapons from being developed by governments that are unstable, that are not democratic, and at all costs preventing their aquisition by countries that are controlled by theocratic/fundamentalist despotisms that start religious wars and have announced their intent to committ genocide.
Is that clear enough?
At all costs, EE? What if the cost is a war? A war with a nation of 68 million? A war that might expand and suck in other nations? A war we might lose because we’re already overextended?
That’s because A.Q. is not a nation, so they don’t fear retaliation from the US.
I stand corrected. There are things worse that nukes being in the wrong hands, and of course an all out invasion of Iran would not be an appropriate response to this crisis. So, no, not at ALL costs.
This doesn’t really apply to the situation we’re talking about though, because nobody is even thinking about an invasion. What we are discussing is an appropriate response to violations of a treaty that Iran has signed. The most aggressive option (and one that I think the US is unlikely to take) is simply to destroy the weapons programs that are in violation of this treaty. I see nothing wrong with this morally, and legally it seems like the operation would have a strong argument in its favor.
But – I’m tired of repeating this – according to the CIA and DIA war-game simulations, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities almost certainly would lead to an all-out war. “As an Air Force source tells it, ‘The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.’”
But that war wouldn’t be a Nuke war now. That’s the whole point.
But we can’t afford a conventional war with Iran, DrDeth. We might not even win it. Our resources are stretched too thin.
Oh, we’d win it. At least the “shooting war”. No doubt. But at what cost? 
Several points here.
First, any intelligence or war games simulations that pretend to be able to predict how a government with supreme and unquestioned dictatorial authority vested in one person or a small group of people will react to a situation like this is completely full of crap. I suspect that the information you’re saying as originating from the CIA and DIA quite possibly was either not what was actually stated (either spun by politicians or journalists to imply something that was not said), presented from a different source that claimed the CIA and DIA as their original source (when they’re not), or was an outright lie.
Second, even assuming that Iran WOULD act in complete and utter disregard for its own interests and choose to escalate the situation, we must ALSO assume that Iran would act in complete and utter disregard for its own interests and choose to use nukes aggressively if they had them. If one, why not the other? Do we choose to deal with an escalated conflict with Iran in possession of nukes, or do we choose to deal with an escalated conflict with Iran without them?
I wouldn’t go this far, and didn’t say I would. It’s more like on a case by case basis. Right now, Iran is in danger (??) of being invaded, and that danger would be clearly much reduced by their developing nuclear weapons.
I did think that, if Iran got them, surely some Arab country could want them too? Which country would that be? Syria? Does not seem to be in the cards for them. If their invasion could be prevented by their having a few small nukes, I would argue for that, too.
I was thinking equally of Russia, too, for the general argument. And China.
Yes, I guess, and I’m not arguing that Al Qaida should have a nuclear weapon (to “protect / defend itself”? from an “invasion”?)
Re: the OP: I had this thought about the “right” to invade Iran -
“Right” is nebulous and many-faceted issue, and one could argue it from any number of angles, as posters do here. BUT. Seems to me that - any chain of argumentation that comes out in favor of the U.S. having the right to invade another sovereign country, can be turned around, into an argument for the right of Iran to develop nuclear weapons in defense of such invasion. Two sides of the same coin.
Oops, only now I realize that the OP didn’t go so far as to mention an “invasion” of Iran. Most of what I said should still apply.
Are you sure? Yes, we would be in a position to invade Iraq from three fronts simultaneously – Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. But what are we going to use for troops? We can’t move troops out of Iraq leaving an insurgency at their backs. And Iran is a much bigger country than Iraq – population 68 million. We might lose. Unless we’re prepared to use nukes. :eek:
For that matter, if the Iranians decided they wanted to invade Iraq right now and take it over, it’s entirely possible they could succeed, and slaughter most of our forces in the process. Iraq has practically no army of its own right now. Yes, our troops are better equipped. The Germans were better equipped than the Soviets in WWII, but in the end they were overwhelmed by superior numbers. And they were fighting with their own homeland at their back and good, sturdy supply lines.
Victory has made us cocky. We think we can lick all creation, and we can’t.
Unless we use nukes. :eek:
This makes no sense.
First, Iran ‘escalating the situation’ in case of war without nukes is ~not~ against its own interests. Defending oneself is always in ones interest. Or are you seriously saying that submission to the will of others is in anyones best interest??
Iran would of course defend itself, or as you put it ‘escalate the situation’. Iran is comprised of human beings, and human beings defend themselves when attacked.
Because one is defensive, one is offensive.
This is how your post reads to me:
“If we attack Iran, they will go against their own interests and defend themselves; this is proof that if they had nukes, they would go against their own interests and use them in an offensive capacity.”
Your post, as written, makes not one bit of damn sense.
You state that as if it were a flatly absurd proposition. In fact it is an idea of ancient lineage – it is the basic thesis of Hobbes’ Leviathan.