Ticomaya wrote:Thomas wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Thomas wrote:Ticomaya wrote:So if the price is not another war (I'll ignore your "un-winnable" and "illegal" characterization), would your answer be "no"?
If Bush could stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by purely diplomatic means, I would encourage him to do that, yes.
But if Iran cannot be stopped by diplomatic means -- and we all know that Iran is the key to diplomatic success on that question -- are you saying you would prefer allowing Iran to acquire nukes rather than the US making military strikes on Iran's reactors?
Yes, that's what I'm saying, because I disagree with your implied premise that an effective strike against Iran's nuclear program can be confined to the reactors.
More generally, I think of politics as a choice of tradeoffs, in which it is usually meaningless to say "I want X" without specifiying what price you are willing to pay. So let me ask you, Tico, what is the price you are willing to pay? How high would the risk have to be to make
you conclude that Iran's nuclear program is not worth striking against?
I think allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, and so the price we ought to be willing to pay is very high. That being said, I believe my implied premise is correct.
How does Iraq
currently pose a clear and present danger to the security of the US?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:Yes, that's basically the question I'm asking: Will the benefits of stopping Iran, a state-sponsor of terrorism, from acquiring nukes, be worth the trouble in doing so?
I think anyone who asserts an answer on this one way or the other is full of it.
The best we can make are hazy probability guesses on the effects of our actions, on such a large scale; the Laws of Unintended Consqeunces have screwed up things enough times in the past, why would things be different now?
Cycloptichorn
Exactly so. How many wars have been started with the cry "Home before the leaves fall" or somesuch variation, only to devolve into a much longer, harsher contest than anyone had envisioned?
Ticomaya wrote: I think allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, and so the price we ought to be willing to pay is very high. That being said, I believe my implied premise is correct.
You say "we". Which part of the price are you planning to pay if and when push comes to shove?
Ticomaya wrote:Setanta wrote:I would dissent to the extent that i continue to assert that, absent an invasion and an occupation, there is no reason to assume that we can prevent it.
And I will continue to remind you that Israel was able to prevent Iraq from acquiring nukes by using a similar approach.
Right?
So then, you accept the contention that the administration knowingly lied when they claimed that Hussein were attempting to obtain materials for a nuclear program?
A couple of Israeli F-16's will take out Iran's nuculear facilities. The question is when??
Possibly . . . possibly they could taken out known facilities . . . which would mean they'd have to overfly a hell of a lot of hostile territory, and a good deal of it territory which the United States Air Force thinks it owns.
Even were they to do that, it does not guarantee an end to efforts by the Persians to obtain nuclear weapons--something which, in any event, they deny doing.
1. Iran is capable of producing and nuclear warheads. They have the raw materials, a workable design, and the technology necessary to build Hiroshima style Atomic bombs Iran has missile delivery capability to carry a warhead to any point in Southern or Southwestern Asia.
2. The current Iranian government is dangerous to regional stability and world peace.
* Iran, led by a government that supports international Islamic terrorist groups. Iranian volunteers and military munitions are a major part of the effort to prevent the re-establishment of Iraq as secular republic. The Iranian government has always supported unending war against Israel, and in recent times has stepped up its threatening rhetoric. Indeed, the most likely target for an Iranian nuclear capability is Israel, or a religiously tolerant (relative term here) Iraq.
Iran, in pursuing nuclear weapons, is as a practical matter renouncing its treaty obligations not renounce nuclear arms. This is a danger, because it becomes a precedent that others might later decide to follow. Nuclear arsenals are basically useless wastes of money if you don't already have a warehouse filled with them. Even maintaining nuclear arms is expensive, especially given the limited value they have in the modern world. The trend has been away from nuclear weapons, and that trend should be fostered and not abandoned without extremely good reasons.
* There does not exist any nuclear threat to Iran from its neighbors, so the deterrent nature of having a bomb is bogus. The Israeli bomb (if it exists, as most of us believe) has never been demonstrated nor used for any purpose other than retaliation from a nuclear strike by its many regional neighbors. Nuclear India is no threat, and a largely simpatico Pakistan nicely balances even the remote possibility of an Indian threat in the future. An Iranian Bomb is NOT a deterrent to the United States. The U.S. is beyond Iranian reach, and possesses an arsenal that if used would destroy Iran beyond imagination, whereas Iran could only with the greatest difficulty destroy one American seaport. It is clear that Iran's purpose for acquiring a nuclear arsenal is either to launch a first strike nuclear attack on Israel, or to threaten and impose its brand of Islam on neighbors. Indeed, it's acquisition of nuclear weapons raises the risk of foreign intervention that hardly existed previously.
There were many reasons to topple Saddam and defang Iraq, one of which was the wide spread belief that Saddam was working to acquire nuclear weapons. Saddam fostered that belief, and afterwards probably regretted strengthening the rational for ending the Gulf War cease fire. If Iran is on the brink of building such weapons, it would appear that they've learned nothing about the world's intolerance for nuclear weapons in the hands of those who threaten regional or world peace. Iran may be betting that uncovering Saddams lies about WMD possession, will make the world even more hesitant to act decisively.
3. What can/should be done about the Iranian intention of acquiring nuclear arms?
* Diplomacy. This always the first and preferable way of settling disagreements between nations. In this case, Iran is on the brink of violating an important international treaty that it agreed to as a result of diplomacy. The threat posed by Iran becoming a nuclear power is directly felt by Israel, and indirectly by the community of nations represented by the United Nations. Diplomacy, in this case, would/should be between Israel and Iran, or between Iran and the United Nations. Since there are no diplomatic connections between Israel and Iran, indeed the Iranian government by its words threatens the very existence of Israel, so no diplomatic solution lies in that direction.
Will the U.N. suddenly become effective and act decisively faced with this challenge? Probably not. The U.N. will talk it to death, and any effective policy will be watered down or hamstrung. The best that might be accomplished in the face of Iranian intransigence would be some sort of sanction(s). Iran already is cut off by its policies from most of the world, so what would they be deprived of? Iran has oil to sell, and China is waiting with wads of cash to buy and sanctions be damned. If Saddam could avoid oil sanctions, and become even richer as a result of corruption in the UN and Europe, what chance is there for effective sanctions against Iran? The sanctions, if ever imposed, would set on the shelf and Iran would build their arsenal anyway. If diplomacy isn't likely to work, then intervention?
* Conventional Intervention. The UN isn't going to send troops, and even if they did the troops would probably be wearing US/British uniforms since almost no one else has an adequate military and is likely to lend their troops to the UN with its history of screwups.
Israel? Israel could only mount an air strike at extreme range. To fly there, the Israeli's would have to air refuel over Iraq, or the ocean, neither of which could probably be done without assistance. Due to distance, difficulties and limited approaches, an Israeli air strike probably would not be a surprise, and the Iranians would be waiting. Israeli losses would be very high, and the likelihood that they would seriously set back the Iranian nuclear programs is low. It is believed, with good reason, that Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and in hardened sites with good aerial defenses. I don't believe that Israel will roll the dice with the risk so high against such great odds.
United States? The U.S. does have troops on the ground in Iraq, but they aren't available to mount a proper ground offensive against the heavily defended western borders of Iran. To do that, would mean redeployment and tasking of our troops. Tough to do quickly, and in this case unwise. Unwise, because it would leave our ground forces with vulnerable flanks and rear. The approaches would be limited. The terrain in the north would work against us.
In the south, we'd have to it the beaches in a Normandy-style landing, though the coast of France was much better defended than Iran would be. Currently we have neither the men nor the proper logistics in place for such a landing in force. The Navy would be able to provide some support, but that would be mainly air and SLBMs. Iran has no credible blue water navy, nor the sort of airpower necessary to take on our carrier groups.
Air strikes alone against dispersed hardened targets seldom are 100 percent effective. Manned US aircraft would have a better chance of surprise than the Israeli's, but might not be much more effective even with air superiority. We can hit a dime a thousand miles away, but that might only bend it. To get the job truly done you need boots on the ground. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't use B-52s from Diego Garcia. However, flying from our guest bases in Southeast Asia might put an undesirable strain on our relationships there. Air strikes might remain an option, but a doubtful option at best.
* Nuclear strike(s). Only the United States and probably Israel have the capability of striking Iran with a nuclear weapon. Israel would be shooting itself in the foot and cutting off its nose to use the first strike option. The United States has the capability to end forever any Iranian nuclear program by using less than .01 percent of our nuclear capability. Our nuclear weapons are clean, accurate, and can be deployed with a wide range of yield. The weapons could be delivered by a wide variety of vehicles, and the loss of civilian life might be kept to relatively low numbers.
On the other hand, we have long pursued a "No First Strike" policy and nothing in the Iranian question is persuasive for changing that policy. The political fallout at home and abroad just isn't worth the use of these weapons except in extreme cases. Even in extreme cases justified by information best not released to the world at large, use of nuclear weapons should be the last resort and use kept to the minimum. There is no indication that Iran, at present, constitutes a clear case for abandoning our no first strike policy. Hence, I don't believe that it will happen even if a detailed plan is drawn and ready for use.
What all this leads us to is the belief that Iran will construct and test several nuclear devices in the next few years. Iran will then begin threatening its neighbors and trying to blackmail the world. There is an unacceptable chance that Iran would supply nuclear materials, or a nuclear weapon, to international Islamic terrorists. At some point there is a better than even chance that Iran will launch a nuclear tipped missile at Israel, and possibly at Baghdad. None of these outcomes is pretty, and all threaten both regional stability and world peace.
I have no solution, nor is it likely anyone else has either.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, since neither the still (and hopefully later as well) Labour government nor the Conservatives or Liberal-Democrats seem to applaute, the price will not only be high but include most probably the loss of your strongest and closest allies as well.
I don't think the fact that Britain chooses to not join us in the endeavor means we have lost them as an ally.
Quote:Formerly, I'd always thought the US attitude towards wars was different to that of others because they hadn't had a war on their own ground since centuries.
Who's advocating war?
woiyo wrote:How does Iraq currently pose a clear and present danger to the security of the US?
Iraq is not an especially imminent threat at the moment, IMO.
Thomas wrote:Ticomaya wrote: I think allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, and so the price we ought to be willing to pay is very high. That being said, I believe my implied premise is correct.
You say "we". Which part of the price are you planning to pay if and when push comes to shove?
I'm willing to encourage our nation ("we") to take the bold step of preventing Iran from acquiring nukes. If not us, who will do it. As I said, I don't think war is necessary, and surgical strikes is all that's required. I don't share your view that allowing Iran, a country that supports international islamic terrorism, and has publically stated a particular country should be wiped off the map, to acquire nukes is tolerable.
Setanta wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Setanta wrote:I would dissent to the extent that i continue to assert that, absent an invasion and an occupation, there is no reason to assume that we can prevent it.
And I will continue to remind you that Israel was able to prevent Iraq from acquiring nukes by using a similar approach.
Right?
So then, you accept the contention that the administration knowingly lied when they claimed that Hussein were attempting to obtain materials for a nuclear program?
Not at all.
Do you accept the contention that Saddam was in fact attempting to obtain nukes? Because if you don't, you must admit to the effectiveness of the Israeli strikes. You can't have it both ways.
But in any event, such strikes are not obviously going to prevent a country from having nuclear ambitions. It will only curtail production in the short term. It is not a long-term solution.
Thomas wrote:Ticomaya wrote: I think allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, and so the price we ought to be willing to pay is very high. That being said, I believe my implied premise is correct.
You say "we". Which part of the price are you planning to pay if and when push comes to shove?
Thomas,
You can bet your life that the "we" Tico is talking about does not include putting his ass on the line!!
Anon
Ticomaya wrote:woiyo wrote:How does Iraq currently pose a clear and present danger to the security of the US?
Iraq is not an especially imminent threat at the moment, IMO.
I would tend to agree with you.
I think you would also agree that the US does posess the necessary retailitory advantage in the event we are attacked first. I would hope that Iran would understand this, as the former Soviet Union undstood the concept of mutual destruction, and Iran should understand that while they may be able to get a missle or 2 over to the US, the US CAN deliver SCORES of missles and wipeout the entire nation.
Unlike how we handled Iraq, I want this Govt to speak strongly about our superior weapons and stress that it is in Irans best interest to peacefully negotiate a solution.
Same should be done with Korea.
GW should stop playing word games and be direct. If Iran needs nukes for non-military reasons, fine (trust but verify as the saying goes). GW should not say anything else except, "We have the ability to defend this nation and we will use every every weapon available including nukes".
woiyo wrote:Ticomaya wrote:woiyo wrote:How does Iraq currently pose a clear and present danger to the security of the US?
Iraq is not an especially imminent threat at the moment, IMO.
I would tend to agree with you.
I think you would also agree that the US does posess the necessary retailitory advantage in the event we are attacked first. I would hope that Iran would understand this, as the former Soviet Union undstood the concept of mutual destruction, and Iran should understand that while they may be able to get a missle or 2 over to the US, the US CAN deliver SCORES of missles and wipeout the entire nation.
Unlike how we handled Iraq, I want this Govt to speak strongly about our superior weapons and stress that it is in Irans best interest to peacefully negotiate a solution.
Same should be done with Korea.
GW should stop playing word games and be direct. If Iran needs nukes for non-military reasons, fine (trust but verify as the saying goes). GW should not say anything else except, "We have the ability to defend this nation and we will use every every weapon available including nukes".
I'm not sure if you meant to ask me about Iraq or Iran when you asked me the question about "clear and present danger." Iran is always a danger due to its support of international terrorism, and that danger would be heightened if it acquired nuclear weapons.
I would urge you to read Asherman's post on the prior page. I agree with virtually all he says there -- with the exception that I hold a belief that a conventional airstrike against Iran's hardened reactors might very well be effective -- including the following forecast, which I believe is unacceptable:
Asherman wrote:What all this leads us to is the belief that Iran will construct and test several nuclear devices in the next few years. Iran will then begin threatening its neighbors and trying to blackmail the world. There is an unacceptable chance that Iran would supply nuclear materials, or a nuclear weapon, to international Islamic terrorists. At some point there is a better than even chance that Iran will launch a nuclear tipped missile at Israel, and possibly at Baghdad. None of these outcomes is pretty, and all threaten both regional stability and world peace.
Ticomaya wrote:Setanta wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Setanta wrote:I would dissent to the extent that i continue to assert that, absent an invasion and an occupation, there is no reason to assume that we can prevent it.
And I will continue to remind you that Israel was able to prevent Iraq from acquiring nukes by using a similar approach.
Right?
So then, you accept the contention that the administration knowingly lied when they claimed that Hussein were attempting to obtain materials for a nuclear program?
Not at all.
Do you accept the contention that Saddam was in fact attempting to obtain nukes? Because if you don't, you must admit to the effectiveness of the Israeli strikes. You can't have it both ways.
But in any event, such strikes are not obviously going to prevent a country from having nuclear ambitions. It will only curtail production in the short term. It is not a long-term solution.
Israel attacked Iraq in 1978--and the case could well be made that the attack helped to cement Hussein's hold on power. Subsequently, the Ba'athists developed womd which they deployed and used. The Israeli strike was not the event which ended Iraqi hopes of developing womd in general and a nuclear program in particular--the Gulf War as that event. So your facile and silly attempt to insist upon a dichotomous (for the slow readers, that means an "either/or") description fails due to irrelevance.
The point i have made all along is that such an operation can only, at best, be a short-term solution. In the circumstances, the likely result would be to harden Persian attitudes and to rally more support for the government in Teheran than they currently enjoy. It is good to note, however, that you are aware of precisely why attacking Persian facilities would be a stupid thing to do.
Ticomaya wrote:woiyo wrote:Ticomaya wrote:woiyo wrote:How does Iraq currently pose a clear and present danger to the security of the US?
Iraq is not an especially imminent threat at the moment, IMO.
I would tend to agree with you.
I think you would also agree that the US does posess the necessary retailitory advantage in the event we are attacked first. I would hope that Iran would understand this, as the former Soviet Union undstood the concept of mutual destruction, and Iran should understand that while they may be able to get a missle or 2 over to the US, the US CAN deliver SCORES of missles and wipeout the entire nation.
Unlike how we handled Iraq, I want this Govt to speak strongly about our superior weapons and stress that it is in Irans best interest to peacefully negotiate a solution.
Same should be done with Korea.
GW should stop playing word games and be direct. If Iran needs nukes for non-military reasons, fine (trust but verify as the saying goes). GW should not say anything else except, "We have the ability to defend this nation and we will use every every weapon available including nukes".
I'm not sure if you meant to ask me about Iraq or Iran when you asked me the question about "clear and present danger." Iran is always a danger due to its support of international terrorism, and that danger would be heightened if it acquired nuclear weapons.
I would urge you to read Asherman's post on the prior page. I agree with virtually all he says there -- with the exception that I hold a belief that a conventional airstrike against Iran's hardened reactors might very well be effective -- including the following forecast, which I believe is unacceptable:
Asherman wrote:What all this leads us to is the belief that Iran will construct and test several nuclear devices in the next few years. Iran will then begin threatening its neighbors and trying to blackmail the world. There is an unacceptable chance that Iran would supply nuclear materials, or a nuclear weapon, to international Islamic terrorists. At some point there is a better than even chance that Iran will launch a nuclear tipped missile at Israel, and possibly at Baghdad. None of these outcomes is pretty, and all threaten both regional stability and world peace.
I have read Ashermans post and I agree that they could be a risk should they develop the means to use them.
My point is to stop playing politics and make it perfectly clear to the Iranian regime, that we have all that is necessary to eliminate them from the planet and will not hesitate to use our power to defend our nation and our interests.
Setanta wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Setanta wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Setanta wrote:I would dissent to the extent that i continue to assert that, absent an invasion and an occupation, there is no reason to assume that we can prevent it.
And I will continue to remind you that Israel was able to prevent Iraq from acquiring nukes by using a similar approach.
Right?
So then, you accept the contention that the administration knowingly lied when they claimed that Hussein were attempting to obtain materials for a nuclear program?
Not at all.
Do you accept the contention that Saddam was in fact attempting to obtain nukes? Because if you don't, you must admit to the effectiveness of the Israeli strikes. You can't have it both ways.
But in any event, such strikes are not obviously going to prevent a country from having nuclear ambitions. It will only curtail production in the short term. It is not a long-term solution.
Israel attacked Iraq in 1978--and the case could well be made that the attack helped to cement Hussein's hold on power. Subsequently, the Ba'athists developed womd which they deployed and used. The Israeli strike was not the event which ended Iraqi hopes of developing womd in general and a nuclear program in particular--the Gulf War as that event. So your facile and silly attempt to insist upon a dichotomous (for the slow readers, that means an "either/or") description fails due to irrelevance.
I don't think anybody, myself included, has claimed the Israeli strike on Iraq ended Iraq's ambitions of obtaining nukes. Nor do I think a US strike on Iran's reactors will end Iran's ambitions of obtaining nukes. But the 1978 airstrike crippled the Iraq nuclear capability, and I don't see how you can deny that.
Further, I don't see how you can rationally go from that understanding to a belief that an air strike on Iran's reactors is not adviseable
simply because you do not think it will forever quell their nuclear ambitions, which is certainly
not the goal of such a strike.
Quote:The point i have made all along is that such an operation can only, at best, be a short-term solution. In the circumstances, the likely result would be to harden Persian attitudes and to rally more support for the government in Teheran than they currently enjoy.
The point you have made is that
because it is only a short-term solution, you believe it should not be attempted. I can see no rationale reason why the 1978 solution in Iraq would not have as satisfactory a result in Iran. It is certainly a better solution than the alternative of simply allowing Iran to acquire nukes.
Quote:It is good to note, however, that you are aware of precisely why attacking Persian facilities would be a stupid thing to do.
An obviously far stupider thing to do is to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.
You are the one who was intent on suggesting that the Israeli strike worked. To wit:
Tico wrote:And I will continue to remind you that Israel was able to prevent Iraq from acquiring nukes by using a similar approach.
Right?
Leaving aside the typically pathetic attempt to make everything dichotomous, black and white, yes or no--this statement contained no acknowledgement that the Israeli air strike was not a permanent solution. The intent was, in fact, very obviously to suggest that it were.
Now you try to back track, and attempt to suggest that it was temporarily effective, and that we can now be just as temporarily effective. The Israeli strike was effective because the Germans who were helping Iraq build its breeder reactor backed out. That is not the scenario in Iran, where the government is not depending upon outside aid. You have been attempting to peddle apples as oranges, and now want to claim they were pears all along.
Taking out the Persian facilities--those of which we have any certain knowledge--will require far more than the relatively simple mission which the Israelis conducted in 1978. Most knowledgeable observers now suggest that they have underground bunkers which will require at the least the use of tactical nukes. Even that will not assure that we have taken out all of their facilities, nor that they will not continue to possess the expertise and the means to start another program, nor even assure that they cannot just continue the current program elsewhere and by other means.
Using nukes on them ups the ante and the hysteria factor by unacceptable degrees, and is especially stupid if you cannot guarantee your results. Israels attack simply drove off the German suppliers--and they thereby assured that the Ba'athists would pursue a homegrown program. The Persians already have that. I do not doubt for a moment that your attitude is conditioned by partisan pugnacity, and is ill-considered and shallow.
blacksmithn wrote:Frankly, I doubt the ability of airstrikes alone to insure that Iran's nuclear capabilities, whatever they may be, are irretrievably reduced.
Moreover, given this administration's missteps and blunders in the Middle East, I doubt that anyone has seriously considered any unintended consequences that may arise from such an ill-taken move.
Finally, given this administration's track record for veracity, I am doubtful whether any analysis of Iranian capabilities, and the ability of our air forces to disrupt them, can be trusted.
Since the EU,the UN,and other world bodiers,plus Russia,are also concerned about Irans capability to produce nukes,the US isnt alone.
Or,are you saying that all these other countries are just following along with whatever Bush says?
Are you saying that these other nations support military action?
