New Hampshire!

I know but I find this worldview too simplistic. There are undeniable costs to bombing other countries.

Then this is a cost. An opportunity cost. Bombing will kill all cooperation we have on this, we'll become the bad guys. You can just say you don't care etc about the world and their opinions since we can just bomb everyone and all but that does matter. We will see a further reduction in our soft power, what you described as the more effective power in this situation.

That is the kind of thing that may well result in sanctions against the US.

And I don't share the notion that that is all just fine because it will hurt other countries.

Bombing economic targets in Iran will have precisely one country in favor (Israel, and even that will be controversial in their country) and unite the entire world against us.

I get that you just don't care about this harm and like to think our might just makes right but that is really where our views drastically differ.

We can't find them all, and they can fortify them even further (to the point that we'd have to use tactical nukes, which would just not fly, to use nukes to kill a nuclear program that might merely produce nukes).

Bottom line is that outside of Israel bombing a sovereign country over the concern of non-proliferation is seen as insane and would make the US a global pariah. Iran has no obligation like Iraq with the UN and there is no legal basis whatsoever for this act. This would turn our allies against us and for little to no strategic gain.

No, it wouldn't. It is not ideal, but represents a negligible risk. Bombing Iran represents a much bigger risk of regional conflict (they could decide to retaliate at Israel and we could get drawn into a ground war).

This is a slippery slope argument. It is not ideal to have more countries have nuclear weapons, and yes it will inspire the Saudis and others to pursue it but it won't be the end of the world and nuclear war is not inevitable (just made incrementally more likely, of course).

It already has. The current generation of Americans is not facing the same economic prospects of their parents or grandparents.

I honestly don't think you are capable of seeing us declining, for sentimental reason.

Well you certainly are consistent in your strength of conviction about things you want to happen. I am of the worldview that there is no way to have non-superficial predictions that far out, and that it represents a failure to acknowledge the role of random, situational factors that are simply not predictable.

I don't perceive any costs.

We wouldn't become the bad guys, any more than the police become the bad guys when they shoot at bank robbers.

But bombing as a last resort would be preferable to letting Iran get nukes.

I doubt it. Crippling a nation's economy is a legitimate method of warfare.

If merely bombing their nuclear sites didn't deter them from building new nuclear sites, we would have a good case that it was necessary to escalate.

Not all fine. Just trying to make the best of a bad situation. There is nothing that I can do to change Mr. Trump's mind regarding trade.

Plenty of the world would understand that we were only doing what was necessary to preserve the Non Proliferation Treaty.

It is not our might that makes us right. We are right because we are upholding international law and preventing Iran from wreaking mayhem around the world.

It is a stroke of luck for the world that the world's most powerful country is also moral and upstanding.

So far Iran has been incredibly bad at fortifications. So bad that their fortifications are almost a parody of fortifications.

Only the bad guys would see us as a pariah.

Iran signed the NPT. They have a legal obligation to not develop nuclear weapons.

Sometimes slippery slope arguments have a very good point.

Once nuclear weapons have spread to most of the world, the odds of a nuclear war will grow quite high. The odds of nuclear war not happening at some point are pretty slim.

The world will be much better off if the US preserves the NPT.

There was an economic dip after the financial crash. We'll get past it.

It was not caused because other nations have prospered.

Quote:

I honestly don't think you are capable of seeing us declining, for sentimental reason.

It is because I do not see the rise of other powers as a zero sum game.

Quote:

Well you certainly are consistent in your strength of conviction about things you want to happen. I am of the worldview that there is no way to have non-superficial predictions that far out, and that it represents a failure to acknowledge the role of random, situational factors that are simply not predictable.

Not exactly what I want to happen. It is true that I like the coming Republican victories because they'll protect my freedom from the Democrats, but Trump isn't exactly my first choice.

Iran is under no obligation to refrain from nukes, they merely have to withdraw from a treaty that they have every legal right to).

I know, you might want to get that fixed. ;-)

There are always some costs to bombing a country, if you see none at all it is only more starkly evident that you are not able to take a nuanced view of the situation.

Only one country on earth (Israel) would possibly agree. To everyone else we would be the bad guys and they much prefer Iran having nukes than the US attacking who we want.

And that's why we aren't going to do it, and this is a mood discussion.

You could reconsider your support for the party he is nominated to, but let's not get crazy here right?

Your view of international law is not one shared by any other country. Not even Israel makes that argument, they simply don't care about international law in theirs.

Natanz is fortified close to the point where only the most extraordinary of conventional weapons would be effective.

We have conventional "bunker busting" bombs capable of this but these are not as readily deployable as other conventional weapons

You mean the whole world other than Israel and possibly Saudi Arabia?

I agree, I just happen to think that the US abiding by international law and using its soft power is the best way, given that it is the only legal way. Using hard power against international law (which what you advocate undeniably would be) would undermine the NPT much more than if Iran joins the nuclear club.

Pakistan is much more of a risk with nukes than Iran is, and their joining the club (with a nuclear neighbor they are at deep odds with) has not killed the NPT and neither would Iran joining it.

You are giving this short shrift. In the past low-level American workers (think retail workers etc) were able to have a house and a car on one person's low-level worker salary.

Those days are not coming back. This generation will never have it that easy. Their most skilled service workers will do better than ever, while the low-skilled American workers will not ever see the same luxury that their grandparents did.

Now that jobs compete on a global marketplace the low-skilled American worker is just not going to have it as easy ever again.

American workers absolutely have suffered due to the rise of billions of people in China and India from poverty. I don't see this as a bad thing (for different reasons than you) but it is fact. Some of those millions of jobs have come at the cost of jobs in the US.

I don't see it as a zero-sum game either, so that doesn't describe the differences in our thinking. It does not have to be a zero-sum game for the US to be declining on the global stage. I do think we differ in that you are a US nationalist while I do not have as much sentimental value for any state and that this is the reason I can tolerate the notion, the mere idea, of the US declining in power while you seem unable to even in theory.

I know he's not your first choice but your emotional response to seeing him as the inevitable Republican candidate is to double down on the wishful thinking and predict 5 consecutive Republican victories.

That doesn't make sense. He's not a palatable choice for even most Republicans and puts the Republican chances of winning this very next election in more jeopardy. He is not going to make it more likely to win 5 consecutive elections, he is going to make it less.

It is debatable how easy it is for them to withdraw from the treaty.

The language specifies that they have to have a good reason for withdrawing. I would argue that "I want to build nuclear weapons now" is not a good reason by itself.

However, even if it were legitimate for Iran to withdraw from the treaty and THEN start developing nuclear weapons, it is not legitimate for Iran to develop nuclear weapons while still a member of the treaty.

And Iran cannot legitimize an already-illegitimate program by withdrawing from the treaty after the fact. So at this point there is no longer any possible way that Iran can develop nukes within international law.

Nothing that can be fixed. My mind has its strengths and its weaknesses. Overall it serves me very well and I'm happy with it.

I think there are a lot more people around the world who would be happy if the US bombed a country, if that bombing were necessary to preserve the NPT.

I think you are underestimating the strength of America's resolve. Perhaps Mr. Sanders would not do it. But Mr. Obama would bomb Iran as a last resort. Mrs. Clinton (were she to be elected) would bomb Iran as a last resort. And certainly any of the Republican candidates would bomb Iran as a last resort.

I don't think it's going to happen. But that's because I think Mr. Obama's diplomacy with Iran will be successful.

As far as voting is concerned, I'm still ticked off at the Democratic Party over the 2008 Michigan primary and am still throwing all my votes to the Republicans in every general election.

Also, the Democrats would have to start respecting the Second Amendment before I could actively support them again. The Second Amendment is far more important than prosperity.

I think my view of international law is quite mainstream.

Actually Israel is quite good about adhering to international law. They even go above and beyond what international law requires of them.

No. I think most reasonable people see the merit in using military force to keep rogue nations from developing nuclear weapons.

If Iran is allowed to develop nukes with no consequences, the NPT is gone.

It is hard to see how bombing a violator of the NPT would undermine the NPT.

Pakistan never signed the NPT to begin with. Iran has illegally developed nuclear weapons while a member of the NPT. They are completely different situations.

A better comparison to Iran is North Korea. They illegally developed nukes while a member of the NPT just as Iran tried to do. In the case of North Korea, the world hit them with crippling sanctions when they developed nukes.

It is possible that, were Iran to develop nukes, the world could preserve the NPT by isolating Iran the same way as North Korea. But the sanctions would have to be overwhelming.

Things were pretty good in the 1990s. I think we can return to the 1990s level of prosperity again.

Robert Gentel wrote:

I know he's not your first choice but your emotional response to seeing him as the inevitable Republican candidate is to double down on the wishful thinking and predict 5 consecutive Republican victories.

I'm basing it on logic, not on wishful thinking. My logic may be wrong. I don't claim infallibility. But it is more than wishful thinking.

Let's compare notes after each of the next five elections. Maybe I'll be wrong. It's happened before. But I've also been right before. We'll see.

I looked at those online "invest in predictions" sites, and I could make a killing right now if I put money on Trump winning in a massive landslide. It's a shame I don't have a whole lot to invest.

Quote:I looked at those online "invest in predictions" sites, and I could make a killing right now if I put money on Trump winning in a massive landslide. It's a shame I don't have a whole lot to invest.

That would work just fine. The treaty stipulates the right to withdraw from the treaty if it is deemed not in the interests of the country.

Which is why they have not done so. They are, just like Japan is, simply interested in being close should they decide to do so. This is perfectly compliant with the treaty, our conflict with Iran goes beyond this and we do not want them to have "break out" capacity which they can technically develop under the treaty.

You do not understand this treaty or the laws involved then. The NPT treaty is entirely voluntary and everyone has the right to withdraw if they want.

They will be faced with sanctions from the others.

We'll say it might be on the table for the purpose of negotiations but I do not think we would do it.

We didn't bomb Pakistan over it, we didn't bomb North Korea over it and we will not bomb Iran over it.

That's fine but don't pretend like there's nothing you can do about a Trump presidency, there's just nothing you are willing to do (nothing wrong with that).

I think you just call whatever you want to be international law international law but while Israel has generally high standards for combat they are most certainly flouting various international laws. They are in violation of UN resolutions just as Saddam was. Their bombing of the Osirak reactor was illegal and there are plenty of cases where they simply do not care for international laws and do what they see as being in their interests.

The world is much more scared of the US as a rouge nation than Iran.

oralloy wrote:

If Iran is allowed to develop nukes with no consequences, the NPT is gone.

No it isn't. It wasn't gone when North Korea or Pakistan did it and won't be gone over Iran either.

Iran did not develop nukes.

The world hit Pakistan with sanctions too and would do so if Iran did.

Yes, the sanctions they would face if they withdrew from the NPT would be severe and are strong enough that it is not in Iran's benefit to do so. But if we were to bomb them we would galvanize nationalism and increase their willingness to endure sanctions.

At least your money is not as confident as your mouth is, that is actually a good thing here. I think you are being unreasonably confident.

Not exactly. It requires extraordinary events involving nuclear weapons that jeopardize the interests of the country.

"Deciding that they want to build nuclear weapons now" is not an extraordinary event that jeopardizes the interests of their country.

That is incorrect. Iran has been illegally working on the development of nuclear weapons for decades.

Only if they have not already been developing nuclear weapons, and only if they can present a good reason for doing so.

There would be no sanctions if they withdrew legitimately (i.e. for a good reason, and without having worked on nuclear weapons before withdrawing).

They face sanctions when their withdrawal from the treaty is illegitimate.

Have you forgotten how often the United States goes to war with other countries in order to uphold international law?

A simple bombing raid against a few nuclear sites would be "just another Tuesday morning" in the US.

Pakistan, like India and Israel, never signed the NPT. That means their development of nuclear weapons is perfectly lawful.

North Korea has a mass of artillery waiting to pounce on Seoul. It kind of deterred us. Luckily the world hammered North Korea with overwhelming sanctions. If not for those sanctions, the NPT would already be dead.

The only way I could prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president would be to go back in time and convince Mr. Obama not to pursue the 2013 gun control debacle.

It's out of my hands I'm afraid. But Mr. Trump won't be all bad. We're finally going to see the end of this terrible assault against the Second Amendment.

The notion that it is illegal to bomb an illegal nuclear weapons program seems... well it just fails to compute for me.

Robert Gentel wrote:

The world is much more scared of the US as a rouge nation than Iran.

Those people are silly.

Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons did not violate the NPT.

North Korea's development of nuclear weapons carried harsh consequences (crushing sanctions). Had North Korea been allowed to develop nukes with no consequences, that too would have been the end of the NPT.

If Iran developed nuclear weapons and then faced harsh crushing sanctions like North Korea, the NPT would survive.

If any member of the NPT (including Iran and North Korea) were ever allowed to develop nuclear weapons with no consequences, that would be the end of the NPT. Once one country is allowed to get away with it, every other country who wants nukes will simply follow in their footsteps.

They have not finished developing them, but Iran has worked on developing them for decades.

Any sanctions against Pakistan are unjust, as Pakistan's nukes are legal.

Any such sanctions though were not overwhelmingly crippling as they are with North Korea.

If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, and was then to face crushing sanctions as in the case of North Korea, that would save the NPT. But we'd have to count on the world to really smash them hard with brutal sanctions.

The thing about bombing and sanctions is that bombing only works before they develop nuclear weapons. Crushing sanctions are only applied after they develop nuclear weapons.

So if they are about to develop nuclear weapons, we would face a choice. If we don't bomb, we are gambling that the world will be willing to apply crushing sanctions on them after they develop nukes. If the world doesn't come through with those sanctions, then the NPT is gone.

Likely the decision on whether to bomb would be based on our sense of how willing the world would be to hit them with crushing sanctions. If we had high confidence that the world would be willing to use harsh sanctions to preserve the NPT, then it would be an easy decision not to bomb. But if it looked likely that they would be allowed to get away with building nukes without any consequences, then the case for bombing becomes much stronger.

I think you misunderstood. Before I can invest money, I have to have it to begin with. I could certainly invest a small amount and maybe pay for building my new computer (and I just might do that). But I don't have enough on hand to invest an amount that would produce returns that would change my life.

Quote:
I think you misunderstood. Before I can invest money, I have to have it to begin with. I could certainly invest a small amount and maybe pay for building my new computer (and I just might do that). But I don't have enough on hand to invest an amount that would produce returns that would change my life.

They can really just say that they feel threatened by a nuclear power threatening to bomb them and wish to join the nuclear club.

They have no obligation whatsoever to remain in the treaty if they don't want to and history has shown that other nations can and have withdrawn and all we can do about it legally is sanction them.

No, you are overstating the case significantly. I don't dispute that their program is crafted so as to be useful for military means, but they have not yet weaponized any of it and what they have done so far is legal under the NPT.

You are simply factually incorrect about this, Iran has the legal right to withdraw whenever they want.

You can make the case that we need to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons outside the framework of the NPT but under the NPT they have the right to withdraw, it is a voluntary treaty with the explicit right to withdraw from it.

Incorrect, they would face sanctions no matter how they withdrew because that was the whole point of being in the NPT in the first place. The only carrot the world has for anyone being in the NPT is avoiding sanctions. No matter how they withdraw from the treaty the response would be sanctions. This is not necessarily stipulated by the NPT this is how the power calculus works.

No, and given that the US has overextended itself it makes it even less likely to do so. Had the US not invaded Iraq there would be capital (both political and resources) for using the military as a response to Iran, but now there is not.

There is not any political capital for a ground war against ISIS and it took way too damn long for there to even be enough political capital to bomb ISIS.

Barring any huge changes we are just not going to go to war over Iran and nukes and would not even be willing to bomb them over it. The American public would have none of that right now, and that is not going to change for a while.

This is a statement so absurd on its face that it really doesn't need any refutation.

Iran has enough weapons ready to hit Israel too.

That's just more wishful thinking, the tendency in the long term in the US as in the rest of the developed world will be for more gun control.

They are not,

But do note that Pakistan was sanctioned none-the-less. The Clinton Administration sanctioned them and Bush lifted the sanctions in exchange for their cooperation post 9/11 with the campaign in Afghanistan.

You really don't seem to understand how the NPT works. The whole thing basically goes like this:

Let's all agree to limit the nuclear club to the extant members and sanction the countries that violate this.

So do many other countries party to the NPT, that is not proscribed by the NPT.

That's the only reason to join the NPT though. Why else would countries voluntarily do so?

That's because North Korea is sanctioned for a lot more than just the nukes. The sanctions would exist independent of the nukes because the sanctions are aimed at the regime toward regime change or Korean unification.

Both are demonstrably false. There are countries that have given up on WMD programs after the fact due to bombing (see Iraq) and there are countries that have been sanctioned prior to the development of nukes (see Iran, it was what just brought them to the table).

If the world you live in is the same world I do then there's no reason for this fantasy. It's obvious what would happen and no need to speculate about it.

If Iran develops nukes it will face crushing sanctions. This is obvious to the whole world, including Iran as it is the only reason they do not do so.

Your prediction is so absurd that it would be given odds that a small amount bet would change your life if you actually won. If you can bet computer sized money you would win house-sized money for winning that bet.

I really do think it's a good thing you aren't as confident with your money as you are with these predictions.