Yes, I do consider it a flatly absurd proposition, no matter how long its been held or who shares/shared it. There is no such thing as anyone who knows whats best for others, because there is no such thing as a human (or any being) with omniscience.
Hobbes’ point was that we should submit to the strongest bastard around, not because he knows or even cares what is best for is, but because that is the surest way to replace “state of nature” anarchy with stable social order.
Of course, by the same reasoning, we should be prepared to submit to the will of the Iranians if at some point in the future they should become stronger than us . . .
We’d win easily and without the use of nukes. No way the Iranian army could stand up to the US in open battle. We’d win…until the occupation phase started. THEN we’d be stretched to the breaking point trying to hold down Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran…and still dealing with AQ. snap Thats the sound of our logistics breaking and the house of cards crashing down. We won’t even go into what a full blown war in Iran would do to our economy…but it wouldn’t be pretty. You might here another snap…
But don’t fool yourself BG…Iran wouldn’t have a chance in hell of even significantly slowing down the US military in open warfare…their best bet would be not to offer battle at all, but to go right into a decentralized irregular war right off the bat a la Iraq today. It would save them a hell of a lot of pain and would be the only effective thing they could do.
Possible. However, Iran will not need to resort to such drastic measures. Sooner or later, Iran will probably end up controlling Iraq. It’s only a matter of patience. The U. S. has removed the only obstacle to this happening by toppling Saddam. The U. S. is already in the absurd position of protesting the fact that Iran is financing hospitals and social welfare centers in Iraq.
Also, Iran has stated that any attack on it will be met by immediate retaliation against Israel. Apparently they have cruise missiles targeting Israeli nuclear sites and have vowed that they will fire them if they are attacked. Iran has also threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz in the event of an attack. This would potentially cork up a huge source of oil.
Iran is strong and the U. S., by weakening Iraq, has tipped the balance of Middle Eastern power ever more in her favor.
First the issue is not if Iran would use nukes in a conventional war… that isn’t much of a danger as was exposed in this thread. The smuggling of nukes through terrorists into western countries would be the problem. The fact that Pakistan is muslim and has nukes makes this kind of less relevant… but fine. So yes its in no ones interest to have nukes in Iran… except of course Iran’s interests.
The message Bush sent to the muslim countries is: “You ain’t got nukular weapons we will invade!” So Iran is getting nukes in order to stop military adventures.
Lastly… if the US plays this right and in a legal way… they will have a good and UN based precedent for imposing sanctions, or whatever else, on future nuclear wannabes. If they play this wrongly they will have to threaten every single wannabe. This means in the next decades the US will have to bully and cajole maybe dozens of countries…
Have you considered applying for a position as one of these strategists. Obviously you’re more qualified than those who’re currently performing these functions.
Or maybe you’re just stating a WAG as though it were an obvious truth.
Given the choice, for now, I’m more likely to side with experts. Is there something more to your argument than a “Seems to me…”?
Well, this is off topic so I dont want to get into it too much, but I think Hobbes point as you state it is limited to the understandings of his time. Submitting to the strongest bastard ~is~ the state of nature. Anarchy, in the sense of no social order whatsoever, does not and has never existed. Anarchy, in the modern sense of the term, pretty much means submitting to the strongest bastard, or becoming a strong bastard.
Why must we invade and occupy Iran to take care of the problem? In the 80s, Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in a surgical airstrike, taking care of the problem easily and setting Saddam’s nuclear weapons program back (which is why he didn’t have any nukes when we stuck our nose into his desert looking for them.)
The US should send fighter jets to destroy any Muslim terrorist nuclear reactor of any sort from the air. There’s no reason any American soldier should be killed in the operation at all.
I’d like you to take a couple of minutes to think seriously about the implications of that word “escalating.”
Same article, next paragraph:
Not in any way preferable to the bombing-raid idea, IMO.
We really don’t have any good options here. The best of a bad lot is to let the Iranians do what they’re doing and hope that they’re telling the truth when they say they only want this technology to generate electricity.
Why should we trust fanatical Muslim ayatollahs hell-bent on the destruction of non-Muslim infidels and America (and Israel) in particular?
Your solution is the absolute worst of a bad lot. It guarantees that America will be struck first. I have little doubt that the Mullahs of Iran will attack us directly or by proxy had they the capability to do so. Remember, Islam sanctions lying to the Infidel and then stabbing him in the back in the manner of Muhammad’s phony peace treaty with the Quaryza tribe, whom he later massacred wholesale.
You think? The Iranian Council of Guardians might be fanatical, but we have no reason to suppose they are insanely reckless and suicidal. And an Iranian nuclear strike on the U.S. or a U.S. ally would be suicide for the Iranian leaders.
And I said we should “believe” them, which is not the same as “trusting” them. It is entirely plausible the Iranians want their own uranium-enrichment technology entirely for the purposes of modernization, self-sufficiency, and pollution abatement. (That question is being debated in a separate GD thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277039 Furthermore, the Iranians are open to international inspections to make sure they’re not making bombs. They have not threatened to kick UN or AEIA inspectors out of the country. All they have said is that they will continue to develop their own NE technology, even if the UN or AEIA respond to that by withdrawing their inspectors. Read the stories posted above.
I have absolutely no doubt that the leaders of Iran would sacrifice themselves and their entire population to attack the ‘Great Satan’ of the United States with nuclear weapons. It is right in line with the Koranic principles of Jihad and martyrdom.
This may sound odd coming from me, but I think the prospect of a nuclear Iran is quite frightening. There is simply no getting around the fact that Iran is a radical Islamist theocracy. Preventing religious fanatics from getting nuclear weapons is precisely the kind of goal the War on Terror should be focusing on.
Unfortunately, we’ve blown most of our wad in Iraq, and have precious little left in the way of force, clout, or international support, to do what may need to be done in places like Iran.
What should have happened is a persistent ratcheting-up of pressure on the mullahs to cease and desist. That pressure should have been backed with the promise of swift and devastating force. Now we can’t do that without a draft. We’re too busy chasing Wolfowitz’s cheap oil in Iraq.
Iran should be allowed to have nuclear power if they like, but not the means to produce weapons-grade fissile explosives (unranium enrichment capability or plutonium-generating breeder reactors). Iran is a known supporter of terrorists (big-time fiancier of Hezbollah), has ultra-radical theocrats in the highest levels of govt., and such people simply cannot be trusted with such dangerous materials. The odds such materials will fall into the hands of terrorists probably approach unity in such an environment, and neither we nor any other Western power can reasonably tolerate the nuclear Iran scenerio without the strictest controls. Thus far, Iran is resisting such oversight, and playing a dangerous game.
