A Nuclear IRAN

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Supposing there is more than a grain of truth in what you say (and there is), are you sure that the end state is preferable? Would you rather have wars where armies fight armies as countries protect their interests, or conflicts where jihadists kill civilian mommies and babies in the attempt of private interests to get their way.

I have a contentious opinion on this matter.

Jihadists hands down. Your implied supposition is that a soldier's life is worth less then a baby's life.

How many people have been killed in the entire Palestinian uprising? How many during the active portion of GWII? Forget soldiers, how many civvies have been killed in the same conflicts? The most violent and longstanding terrorist campaigns have inflicted a fraction of the casualties of the quickest wars in history. Economically, there isn't even a comparison.

Further, terrorism is the result of a weakness in military prowess. That a state can not exert its will because it is so outclassed militarily is one of the root causes of terrorism and terrorist campaigns. There needs to be some sort of grassroots support for the terrorists for them to exist and this support is based always in legitimate grievence and substantial power disparity.

If I were looking for peace and had to choose between wars or terrorism, I'd take terrorism. Even more preferably, I'd prefer economic warfare to the exploding kind if peace were the objective.

James.

[Tomas N]

Originally Posted by jBirch

<Pulls Pin...>

I'd like to introduce a bit of contention into this debate if I may for a moment...

<throws grenade...>

No two nuclear powers have ever gone to war. Sure, they've abused third parties and engaged in some pretty intense skirmishing, but they've never gone to war. In fact, where severe disagreements exist, nuclear weapons have served to increase peace, not destruction. Would anyone care to conjecture where WWII or Korea or Vietnam would have gone had there not been the threat of nuclear retaliation? MADD, as a philosophy, actually does provide a check on one's actions.

I'm actually of the opinion that while terrorist activity in the region will probably increase, military conflict (with armies and air forces and the like) will decrease. Israel is actually more secure with Iranian nukes then it is without them for the simple reason that Iran has less to fear from Israel and the rest of the West.

<Ducks...>

James.

Well, I'll bite. I'm not sure I like the analysis too much. Do we really believe if we just armed everyone with a bomb and a funcitonal delivery system, we'd never go to war? While nuclear powers haven't fought directly, the U.S. and the Soviet Union came awfully close during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It seems to me that it would not have taken much more going wrong in that episode for the missiles to have flown. Since the stakes are so high in a nuclear conflict, even if there was only a 10% chance that the U.S. and Soviets had a nuclear exchange, the expected cost is immensely high.

Tomas

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I have a contentious opinion on this matter.

Jihadists hands down. Your implied supposition is that a soldier's life is worth less then a baby's life.

How many people have been killed in the entire Palestinian uprising? How many during the active portion of GWII? Forget soldiers, how many civvies have been killed in the same conflicts? The most violent and longstanding terrorist campaigns have inflicted a fraction of the casualties of the quickest wars in history. Economically, there isn't even a comparison.

Further, terrorism is the result of a weakness in military prowess. That a state can not exert its will because it is so outclassed militarily is one of the root causes of terrorism and terrorist campaigns. There needs to be some sort of grassroots support for the terrorists for them to exist and this support is based always in legitimate grievence and substantial power disparity.

If I were looking for peace and had to choose between wars or terrorism, I'd take terrorism. Even more preferably, I'd prefer economic warfare to the exploding kind if peace were the objective.

James.

Interesting sidebar here.

Actually, the way war is waged today by the US and most developed countries, the life of a soldier is indeed worth less than that of a civilian. Soldiers wage battles using what I would sometimes consider excessive restraint that some enemies will exploit. Iraqi was notorious for loading civilians into so called dual use faclilities as human shields. Several successful PR battles were won by Saddam using this tactic after legitimate military target full of civilians were hit. In my opinion, there is too much restraint many times.

Terrorism is a result of little or no power...military, political or othewise. Terrorists typically select non-military targets chosen to inflict the most physical and psycological damage, and usually that means to hit civilians. That's why the ratio of civilian to soldier deaths in terrorist attacks is so skewed. It's not valid to compare it to a conventional war. Another point I think worth making is that that soldiers understand what they are involved with. A mother taking a bus with her infant should not expect to be blown up. A soldier in a humvee does.

Granted, civilians die in war. But, the number of civilian deaths compared to the size of the campaign (Iraq and Afghanistan in particular) is miniscule compared to the number of soldiers participating and the amount of ordnance expended.

I'll take the current "war on terrorism" as the 3rd option, especially when you consider the magnitude of destruction possible with the sophistication of the attacks and particular types of devices that could be provided by certain governments who may share some goals with the terrorists. The management of Iran sponsors terrorism, as did the former management of Iraq. The management of both are legitimate targets (in my opinion).

We're way past buses and the occaisional hijackings if you had not noticed.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Tomas N

Well, I'll bite. I'm not sure I like the analysis too much. Do we really believe if we just armed everyone with a bomb and a funcitonal delivery system, we'd never go to war? While nuclear powers haven't fought directly, the U.S. and the Soviet Union came awfully close during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It seems to me that it would not have taken much more going wrong in that episode for the missiles to have flown. Since the stakes are so high in a nuclear conflict, even if there was only a 10% chance that the U.S. and Soviets had a nuclear exchange, the expected cost is immensely high.

Tomas

Tomas,

You're absolutely right. Just because we have not had a nuclear war in the past, does not mean that we wouldn't in the future. And all it would take is for one nation to think that it could get away with a nuclear attack for the whole idea to come crashing down.

The alternative to giving everyone a nuclear weapon is to make sure that no one has them.

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Slim

Interesting sidebar here.

Actually, the way war is waged today by the US and most developed countries, the life of a soldier is indeed worth less than that of a civilian. Soldiers wage battles using what I would sometimes consider excessive restraint that some enemies will exploit. Iraqi was notorious for loading civilians into so called dual use faclilities as human shields. Several successful PR battles were won by Saddam using this tactic after legitimate military target full of civilians were hit. In my opinion, there is too much restraint many times.

Yes and no. The restraint is a result of a huge disparity in military force. If Saddam could have defended those facilities in other manners, he probably would have. Further, human shields can only really be used in a defensive capacity. In their offensive capacity they're called "Conscripts". *grin*

Terrorism is a result of little or no power...military, political or othewise. Terrorists typically select non-military targets chosen to inflict the most physical and psycological damage, and usually that means to hit civilians. That's why the ratio of civilian to soldier deaths in terrorist attacks is so skewed. It's not valid to compare it to a conventional war.

I get your point, though I disagree. You're supposing in this case that we can't even compare civilian casualties between conflicts of differing intensity and I disagree with that. Wars are wars and casualties are casualties.

Another point I think worth making is that that soldiers understand what they are involved with. A mother taking a bus with her infant should not expect to be blown up. A soldier in a humvee does.

Which is precisely what makes terrorist activities so effective. And this is not a new tactic, by the way, Viking pillagers were doing it centuries before Islamic fundies.

Granted, civilians die in war. But, the number of civilian deaths compared to the size of the campaign (Iraq and Afghanistan in particular) is miniscule compared to the number of soldiers participating and the amount of ordnance expended.

So?

I'll take the current "war on terrorism" as the 3rd option, especially when you consider the magnitude of destruction possible with the sophistication of the attacks and particular types of devices that could be provided by certain governments who may share some goals with the terrorists.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying (not unreasonably) that you'd take killing their civilians to them killing yours. Fair enough.

The management of Iran sponsors terrorism, as did the former management of Iraq. The management of both are legitimate targets (in my opinion).

By extension, so is the US management.

We're way past buses and the occaisional hijackings if you had not noticed.

Actually, I hadn't noticed. What do you mean here?

James.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Yes and no. The restraint is a result of a huge disparity in military force. If Saddam could have defended those facilities in other manners, he probably would have. Further, human shields can only really be used in a defensive capacity. In their offensive capacity they're called "Conscripts". *grin* .

I disagree. The restraint is a result of TV cameras and the fear of appearing too "brutal". It's also the fear of being brought up on charges for behavior judged excessive by those fortunate enough to be able to 2nd guess without the fear of getting blown up if their decision isnt timely, correct or not.

Human sheild is a misnomer. Its a booby trap. Take out a complex that has been purposely packed with civilians, and it blows back in the media, causing much more damage than the original bomb could do. Great tactic when you dont give a rats a$$ about your people. And cheaper than a good air defence system. You really think there was ANY hesitation on the part of SH?

Originally Posted by jBirch

I get your point, though I disagree. You're supposing in this case that we can't even compare civilian casualties between conflicts of differing intensity and I disagree with that. Wars are wars and casualties are casualties.



Which is precisely what makes terrorist activities so effective. And this is not a new tactic, by the way, Viking pillagers were doing it centuries before Islamic fundies.

It's not new, and is very effective. The only thing changing about it is the magnitude of the attacks.

Originally Posted by jBirch

If I understand you correctly, you're saying (not unreasonably) that you'd take killing their civilians to them killing yours. Fair enough.

As unfortunate as it is, since I have to pick one, absolutely. Anyday.

Originally Posted by jBirch

By extension, so is the US management.

Please. I've heard this from PM and company over and over.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Actually, I hadn't noticed. What do you mean here?

James.

You're trying to contrast the difference between the two in terms of numbers. My point here is that gone are the days of an occasional bus exploding or plane crashing. Recall that quite recently there were more innocent people killed in a one day event than the current number of soldiers to have been killed while on active duty in Iraq in over 2 years.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Slim

I disagree. The restraint is a result of TV cameras and the fear of appearing too "brutal". It's also the fear of being brought up on charges for behavior judged excessive by those fortunate enough to be able to 2nd guess without the fear of getting blown up if their decision isnt timely, correct or not.

I think we disagree as to the wartime utility of protecting civilians. There actually is a series of cold-hearted reasons why not killing civvies is a good thing when it comes to accomplishing your military objectives. Just to mention a few: killing civvies generates needlessly hostile territory, breeds capable insurgencies and acts as a drain on your manpower.

Human sheild is a misnomer. Its a booby trap. Take out a complex that has been purposely packed with civilians, and it blows back in the media, causing much more damage than the original bomb could do. Great tactic when you dont give a rats a$$ about your people. And cheaper than a good air defence system. You really think there was ANY hesitation on the part of SH?

Right. But again, this is a DEFENSIVE tactic. A kind of Scorched Earth policy. You must be resigned to losing that facility and generating the ill will in your fighting troops for a chance to make your enemy pause in their attacks. You have to be pretty badly outclassed militarily before you resort to such tactics.

It's not new, and is very effective. The only thing changing about it is the magnitude of the attacks.

Agreed.

As unfortunate as it is, since I have to pick one, absolutely. Anyday.

As odd as this sounds, me too.

Please. I've heard this from PM and company over and over.

Who is PM?

My point was that if you target the enemy and kill civvies (as is inevitable given the high cost of casualties to a democratic aggressor) then you can't claim the moral high ground with any sort of legitimacy when the enemy does the same to you. That's all.

I actually have no problems with the civilian death toll in Iraq. It is the inevitable consequence of war. It could most certainly be much higher.

You're trying to contrast the difference between the two in terms of numbers. My point here is that gone are the days of an occasional bus exploding or plane crashing. Recall that quite recently there were more innocent people killed in a one day event than the current number of soldiers to have been killed while on active duty in Iraq in over 2 years.

Right and about a tenth as many civvies as have been killed in that same conflict. A one day terrorist event in the US cost ~3000 innocent lives. A two year war in Iraq has cost ~30000 innocent lives ( ~37% from US action ).

The death toll in 9/11 is the greatest ever from a single terrorist attack and you're right that a bus bomb or a plane crashing pales in comparison. In fact, this kind of speaks to the point I was trying to make: even the worst terrorist strike pales next to the most surgical war.

In the light of this, the supposition has been raised that giving nations limited atomic weapons has actually decreased violence and warfare. That while a nuclear armed Iran makes the US less safe, it makes the entire world MORE safe. That because the national power of a nuclear weapon is substantial, there is little to no way that a nation is going to give one of its precious nukes to a rogue terrorist element with a slim chance of sucess (and a guarentee of vicious backlash).

The idea of Al-Q getting a nuke from Iran, for example, is shear paranoia.

James.

[Epee_Pox]

On the sub-topic of democracy in the arab world, I came across this editorial cartoon in Saudi Arabia's "Arab News." Intriguing on many many levels, not least of which is such a message being sent in light of the Saudi government's utter control & censorship of the press. I wonder what the rest of you make of it.

[Slim]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11182458...EmailThis&CE=1

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Slim

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11182458...EmailThis&CE=1

A pretty good summary of just how difficult (indeed probably impossible) an effective Israeli strike would be.

"Israel's fleet of specialized planes for in-flight refueling—five aging KC-130H tankers—doesn't have the capacity to get all those aircraft there and back again. The only way to manage it would be with a covert stopover midway—it's anybody's guess where."

So after the entire Israeli deep air strike capability has hit with 100% accuracy they wouldn't mind getting home.

Well then how?- answers on a postcard? bare in mind Israel has no aircraft carriers or willing gulf bases.

But wait just a minute the source of the Newsweek article: Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli armed forces chief of strategic planning, seems to have changed his tune.

He is also the main expert for the December 2005 World Tribune article entitled 'U.S. Army report: Israel can't stop Iran nukes' in which he highlights just how limited the chances of succes would be (although he does say Israel could attack as a one time surprise operation- though it is far from clear whether he thinks that would be sensible given the huge complexities he describes)

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...ael_12_05.html

Even if Israel attack it will be seen as a joint US mission anyway. So it wouldn't be, politicaly, any better for America either- possibly worse.

[umbrella]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Who thinks Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? Some estimate they will have capabilities to develope them within 2 years.
Should we (The World) let them?
Should we (The USA) stop them?

I don't think ANYONE should have them. It's like the last smallpox bactrium that was finally thrown away; take the wonderful formula for it and destroy it.

Take all the nuclear weapons and send them into the far reaches of the universe, blow up some uninhabited star or comet. We have electric, solar; windmill, gas, and if we limit oil; we can heat up the entire planet.

Buildings and homes can go solar with backup oil reserve tanks. The solar panels can deliver energy to homes and oil takes up the slack in a proportional manner daily[like a mix] Windmills can be for anything; cars/buses can go electric, with some deisel [like a mix]; Warmer climates can go almost all solar; with eastern europe getting the lions share of oil.

Thats what I'd like to see.

[D.O.A.R.]

Originally Posted by umbrella

I don't think ANYONE should have them. It's like the last smallpox bactrium that was finally thrown away; take the wonderful formula for it and destroy it.

Even if the whole world was nuke free, how do you keep the bad guys from pursuing them? What do you do with all the smart guys that have the know how to make a nuke?

Originally Posted by umbrella

[b]Take all the nuclear weapons and send them into the far reaches of the universe, blow up some uninhabited star or comet. We have electric, solar; windmill, gas, and if we limit oil; we can heat up the entire planet.

Shouldn't we save some for the Texas sized asteroid that comes calling one day?

[Slim]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

PM, you may want to rethink your trip to Tehran.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

I think you will find that many more innocent civilians are killed by armies fighting armies, compared to terrorism.

Well, not in Iraq, where---for the first time, as far as I can tell---the so-called resistance has taken to targeting Iraqi citizens as a primary aim, and typically has been killing about 30 of them for every American killed. Deliberate bombings of market squares, schools and commuter bridges are much more likely to kill innocent civilians than typically occurs in "collateral damage" scenarios using anything short of NBC weapons.

Why (after 3 years) has America not made any official attempt to find out how many civilians they have killed in Iraq- does that not strike you as strange- even disrespectful to the Iraqi people?

Omnes non possumus omnia. We have our hands full with operations that are actually relevant to our missions there. Combat, counterterrorism, intelligence and infrastructure-building are more important at this stage than the gathering of demographic data. ( Which sounds cold, but practically that's what counting casualties is. )

Especially when the data-gatherers are likely to be shot at, ambushed, bombed and generally annoyed by those from whom they are gathering. And very possibly lied to by those from WHOM they are gathering.

As insensitive as it sounds, it's not an urgent task at this stage of the game.

Is terrorism the gravest threat that America faces now?

Just the gravest one we can do something about that isn't likely to cause enormous economic upheaval and general domestic misery.

Even if it is has America killed more terrorists than it has created and is it possible to kill all the terrorists for a final victory?

No way to tell for sure, and probably not but possible to kill enough to deter the sort of army creation that's gone on in the past. IMO.

Do you need to kill all the terrorists for a final victory?

Just enough to make those considering the career think again. By which I mean the planners and leaders: the illiterate suicide bombers are both unlikely to be deterred by the prospect of death and unlikely to be very effective without the organizers and financiers, the trainers and the commanders. We need to kill these latter, and the rest will manage sporadic misfires at worst and accomplish nothing at best...

Has the shocking treatment at Guatanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib created more terrorists than they have imprisoned?

I'm no expert, but I'd guess not. Certainly not more than have been imprisoned AND killed.

These are important questions. Sometimes even good intentions (or even ambigious intentions) can be counter-productive.

Very true. However, the alternatives in this case seem to be worse. Do nothing? Appease? Capitulate? Buy off? What else is to be done?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

But perhaps you subconciously filter what you read, because of your broadly hawkish political ideology and general distaste for even a hint of a liberal interpretation?

Very possibly, I suppose. But some things are fairly immune to misinterpretation. I mean when you have a popular children's television program glorifying suicide bombings and indoctrinating kids into the wonders of terrorist violence against the West---as I have read is the case in Iran---that seems pretty unambiguous to me. And I'd not expect the theocracy, which I daresay controls the media quite tightly, to permit things like this to go on if it did not approve of them.

Either way I would say that young Americans have a more negative view of Iran than young Iranians have of America, and that is a challenge for the future.

I suspect that you're right. I also suspect that the young Iranians are much less able to do anything substantive with their attitudes than do the Americans. In Iran they cannot even run for office if they do not meet standards of thinking and behavior imposed by the mullahs. Or has the Iranian government stopped disqualifying insufficiently hard-line candidates?

Are you suggesting that after these conflicts Israel is now living in peace?

From the bulk of the Arab world? From the enemies they defeated? Yes. Although "peace" may not be the right word. Perhaps disgruntled tolerance?

From Palestinian terrorist groups, no. But even that I would not characterize as a state of constant warfare.

Why does every war start with the presumption that it will be over by Chistmas?

Hope springs eternal, I suppose.

However, there is precedent. Israel bombed the Osirak reactor in Iraq. A simple matter of narrowly targeted surgical airstrikes, temporally very limited as well. What was the result? The effective crippling of Saddam's nuclear development efforts, or unending vengeful war against Israel by Iraq?

You have shown a persistently blase 'can do' attitude to military strikes- I find this very worrying. Bombing a few selected facilities will be the start of a very long and protracted conflict in which Iran will take advantage of the two terrorist playgrounds it finds on its borders.

You predict this with such confidence, but on what practical basis? Historically the outcomes seem to have been otherwise...

Iran will cripple the world oil company, supply terrorists with WMD and continually seek more WMD for the next 50 years at least.

One small problem with this scenario. Oil is Iran's bread and butter. If it cripples the market for its own primary source of revenue, where will the money for terrorist support and WMDs come from? With what will it pay? Foreign exchange from tourism?

They will make America enemy number one, when now it has no intention of attacking her.

We may believe this, but we cannot know it. We cannot read the minds of the theocrats and Revolutionary Guards who control the reins. Given the extremely thin rationale Iran offers for "needing" an enrichment program, I am inclined to doubt their pronouncements of peaceful intent...

The only logical conclusion to arresting all of these factors is a full scale invasion.

I just don't see it.

You know and they know that America is not going to abandon Israel. I can see recognition of Israel as a potential bargaining chip for Iran though- in return for an end to sanctions perhaps or entry into WTO perhaps?

And make all of their former friends into enemies, for wordly gain? Is that the way in that part of the world?

It strikes me as more likely that the Israel issue would become the carrot before the mule's nose, never quite to be reached but convenient for inducing it to do work for them. And meanwhile...

But if Iran had a reforming, broadly US friendly Iranian government- why would it fear it having a nuclear programme any more than it does a dictatorial General desperately clinging on against a tide of relgious extreemism (i.e Pakistan)

Indeed. But that's an "if" that is a very long way away at the moment. And meanwhile...

( NB I am also less than sanguine about Pakistan, but that is a ship that's already sailed. Actual bombs can be moved around, huge complexes of gas centrifuges cannot. The military-option calculus is as different as the political and economic ones. )

Was that the black market that stems from Pakistan- a principle recipient of US aid and under no threat of military action? I am not going to argue that this is good news- it isn't. But part of the iranian strategy is to control the cycle so if needsbe it can develop a bomb quickly.

Or so it says. Given their many years of lies on the nuclear issue, what reason do we have to believe them now?

I gues this is part of laying plans down for being able to do this as quick as possible. This is grounds for referral- not military strikes.

"But...but...if you refer us we WILL make a bomb!"

They do not seem to be following the chain of reasoning you are following.

On the other hand much of this report is from US intelligence. American officials say the allegations are based in part on material from a laptop computer seized in Iran. Forgive me if I am a bit cynical of American intelligence's attempts to build a case for war.

Fair enough.

I have argued why I am sure that Israel doesn't have the capabilty to do this before.

So, their military power has declined since they did exactly this to Osirak?

Your doctrine of limits of power may imply that if they could- they would have already.

Not necessarily. They waited until Osirak was fairly well along. Sometimes it's best to wait until the last minute. Or in this case, perhaps until we manage to extricate our troops from Iraq...if we ever do.

In terms of contemplating it- didn't Slim provide a poll that showed Americans supported military action?

I don't know, but we don't conduct foreign po