Iran's manhattan project speeds ahead....

[MKSheppard]

That base was taken off the table.

It all depends on how quick a decision is made. If Obama comes to his senses and stops waffling around, the deployment can continue as was scheduled before -- albeit delayed by about six months or so. Beyond a year, we're talking major delays.

therefore a rational person looks at other options.

Except there ARE no favorable options other than the Polish/Czech GBI deployment.

1.) USN Ships? Engagement geometry is horrible; unless they're in the Black Sea; which would piss the Russians off even more. CG(X) with it's OMGHUEG super sized VLS capable of carrying a full sized GBI (or slightly less) is decades away.

2.) ABL could be worked up to a squadron that constantly keeps one plane orbiting in Northern Iraq or Eastern Turkey, but I'm not too sure on the maximum lethal range of the laser on it; and keeping that forward base filled with the tons and tons of toxic chemicals to support a detachment wouldn't be pretty. Plus it's vunerable to an Iranian cross-border fighter raid; unless we deploy fighters for support; and that'll eat into the USAF's deployable fighters.

3.) THAAD is most likely the fall back deployment plan; but it's a light ABM defense system, it's essentially only capable of covering a single European-sized country (e.g. Poland, Germany) from a central point in that country -- you would have to deploy THAAD units in *each* NATO country in order to achieve the kind of total coverage that the GBI system would; and we won't have that many deployable THAAD firing batteries for a while; it's only just finally getting out of the development phase; and the US Army wants it first, so they can get a really capable ABM system to replace Patriot.

[Ryan Thunder]

So, you admit that you hope for your enemies' success, when their goal is to decrease your ability to influence that region. This is a good thing for you because...?

First, America is sufficiently thuggish that I don't really care if it's good for America or not.

Yeah, you only live there, don't you?

[Covenant]

So basically you have no concept of deterrence is what you are saying?

That's not what I meant, I'm just not positive that launching a nuclear retaliatory strike against Iran would be necessary to achieve the requisite amount of obliteration required to demonstrate that launching a nuclear attack would result in an overnight regime change. I would understand that as sufficent deterrance. I could be incorrect though, maybe I don't understand--I can't see why the only form of nuclear deterrance has to be another nuclear weapon, if we have enough conventional weapons to achieve the same effect.

If I'm mistaken about how it's viewed across the globe, then fine, I'll agree. What of Iran would we want to nuke anyway? I assume people aren't arguing that we light a fireball over Tehran. Maybe it'd scare them out of using nukes the same way it scared Japan, but it seems more likely to cause everyone to hate us even more. Are our conventional weapons insufficent to deterring a single offensive nuclear deployment? I'm not sure what the difference between conventional annihilation and nuclear annihilation is, except the fact that a plume of radioactive detris could potentially fall across a great deal of Persian Gulf states, or up into Russia, depending on the time of year--though I'm terrible at reading wind charts. Has the risk of diplomatically problematic fallout been blown way out of proportion? If we could deliver a retaliatory nuclear strike without causing more than local damage, that reduces the pressure not to.

Anyway, that was the basis for my statement. You'd think that a lot of people would follow the US in a strike on an atomically aggressive Iran, more than what's needed to achieve the same kinds of results that nukes could do, or more. I was never arguing that people would sit on their hands.

[Ryan Thunder]

So, you admit that you hope for your enemies' success, when their goal is to decrease your ability to influence that region. This is a good thing for you because...?

First of all fucktard, they aren't MY enemies. The US and Iran are not at war.

Yeah, kind of like the Soviets and the Americans weren't at war, so therefore they weren't enemies--oh, wait...

Second, there would be major American influence in the region just as there is throughout the rest of the world, even if every single American ship, plane and soldier was removed from the Middle East tomorrow. Has American influence fizzled in Spain, Greece or other countries where Uncle Sam's bases were closed? No. What wouldn't last is our clownshoes empire, but since the US is not supposed to be one and was never meant to be one, good riddance.

France. And you even saved them from the Nazis almost 70 years ago.

Third, since they don't teach geography like they used to I'll explain something: the Middle East is not the property of the United States of America. The more countries in the region that build nukes, the less likely they ever will be -and that's a good thing.

I beg to differ. It is not your property. Neither is it in your interests for them to have nukes when they fund Hezbollah and the like, as well as insurgent forces in Iraq, however. Is that really so hard for you to comprehend?

Screeching that you've supposedly done worse in the past does nothing to change the simple fact that it is not in your interests now. Bleating about it merely proves that you remain an irrelevant flagellant who can safely be ignored.

I realize that many Americans have the sick notion that we have a god-given right to rob and kill brown people hard-wired into their lizard brains. Well, fuck 'em.

Yeah, because that's totally what this is all about, isn't it? Projecting much?

Seriously, even if we assume that its somehow true, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, kind of like the Soviets and the Americans weren't at war, so therefore they weren't enemies--oh, wait...

You think we were enemies? Why am I not seeing radioactive rubble around me?

Except there ARE no favorable options other than the Polish/Czech GBI deployment.

Yeah, relying on unstable East European nations politically is the best option for America's defense. We already heard that Also, these interceptors have nothing to do with Iran. Taking down a singular Iran warhead for a long strike with ICBM would be done with an SM-3 easily; and if Iran attacks nearby Iraq or something with MRBMs and SRBMs you're better off relying on tactical complexes, and Poland's interceptors won't protect immediate American forces in the area.

The East European deployment has jack shit to do with Iran.

[Ryan Thunder]

Yeah, kind of like the Soviets and the Americans weren't at war, so therefore they weren't enemies--oh, wait...

You think we were enemies? Why am I not seeing radioactive rubble around me?

Because we would be, too?

Taking down a singular Iran warhead for a long strike with ICBM would be done with an SM-3 easily; and if Iran attacks nearby Iraq or something with MRBMs and SRBMs you're better off relying on tactical complexes, and Poland's interceptors won't protect immediate American forces in the area.

Shep already explained (in detail, mind) why the SM-3 would be ineffective. Why do think it would be?

[That NOS Guy]

The East European deployment has jack shit to do with Iran.

So what, pray tell, does it have to do with? Because we both know it has jack shit to do with the Russians.

[mr friendly guy]

So, you admit that you hope for your enemies' success, when their goal is to decrease your ability to influence that region. This is a good thing for you because...?

First, America is sufficiently thuggish that I don't really care if it's good for America or not.

Yeah, you only live there, don't you?

Ignoring for a moment your idiotic assertion that just because he lives in a country LoA cannot go against the countries leaders on moral objections, since you clearly don't live in America, why should you care?

And if you are going to argue that you can support America even if you don't live there, why can he not oppose America on this issue when he lives there, since you know, the US is a democracy. In fact wouldn't LoA opinion mean more to the US (assuming he can vote) than some jackass on a message board who lives in Canada?

[Ryan Thunder]

First, America is sufficiently thuggish that I don't really care if it's good for America or not.

Yeah, you only live there, don't you?

Ignoring for a moment your idiotic assertion that just because he lives in a country LoA cannot go against the countries leaders on moral objections, since you clearly don't live in America, why should you care?[/quote]
Let's get one thing straight here; nobody is asserting that he cannot argue for a position that is not in his own interests merely because he lives in America. I merely assert that he is an idiot, and irrelevant for doing so.

[K. A. Pital]

Because we would be, too?

You had nigh 20 years where we could not retaliate.

[Redleader34]

Who said anything about war? War implies that they can fight back!

Are you nuts? The Iranians could flood the Arabian Gulf with enough mines to paralyse shipping for months if not years!

Shit.

Well, that does imply that they still have a navy to deploy said mines with at that point.

'course, you'd need a fuckton of planes or destroyers...

Please tell me you are joking and not this dumb on geopoltics, between cheap rubber rafts and common mines, do you want the cost of gasoline to skyrocket about now?

Ok, so from what I understand, Iran has a certain amount of low-enriched uranium, in other words - not usable for nukes before a lot more enrichment/work.

Whats the problem?

*sigh*

A nation with known ties to active Islamic terrorist organizations is refining uranium (SEE: nuclear bombs) and launching satellites (SEE: ICBMs.) You don't see a problem with this?

Islamic terrorism? Sounds pretty racist if you ask me, those Brown People Muslims shouldn't be angry at the west for interfering in their internal poltics for the last 100 years (and Iran of all places knows what the west will do to them, so they should arm, if nothing else for their own self defense).

[mr friendly guy]

Let's get one thing straight here; nobody is asserting that he cannot argue for a position that is not in his own interests merely because he lives in America.

It might have helped if you made it more clear than a one shot line of "you live there".

I merely assert that he is an idiot, and irrelevant for doing so.

Ah, so its idiotic to argue based on moral objections now. Because LoA made it pretty clear to any one who could read he was arguing against America's thuggish behaviour. Sounds like a moral objection.

Saying we can do X if its our interest with no attempt to qualify or limit what one can do just leaves itself open for anyone to justify anything.

So Ryan, is it idiotic to argue against your countries interest if the countries interest is immoral. Yes or no. And why?

Now you could try and weasel out of this, and attack his premise about America's behaviour if you disagree with his assessments, but judging by your replies to Eldart, you don't care about that right? As long as its in your interest, its all that matters right?

[Ryan Thunder]

Because we would be, too?

You had nigh 20 years where we could not retaliate.

We thought you had it already. Failing that, politics. It looks really bad if you steamroll over your opponent and into your allies like Patton advocated.

I merely assert that he is an idiot, and irrelevant for doing so.

Ah, so its idiotic to argue based on moral objections now. Because LoA made it pretty clear to any one who could read he was arguing against America's thuggish behaviour. Sounds like a moral objection.

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."

Furthermore, in the case of Elfdart he goes beyond that into the realm of arguing for things that aren't in his best interests because they aren't in his best interests and he thinks his country deserves that. Which is quite possibly the most utterly retarded policy I've ever heard.

So Ryan, is it idiotic to argue against your countries interest if the countries interest is immoral. Yes or no. And why?

Yes. Because your country is more than just you and your morals.

[mr friendly guy]

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."

I am sure you will explain that piece of self contradiction and how it applies to this scenario. Or is your "argument" a bunch of talking points without actually justifying anything.

So Ryan, is it idiotic to argue against your countries interest if the countries interest is immoral. Yes or no. And why?

Yes. Because your country is more than just you and your morals.

Congratulations, you have just shown yourself to be another immoral right wing fucktard. You have just proven my point that the "my interest" argument can be used to justify anything.

No doubt in your mind you are already picturing Iran doing gross harm to America. After all, Iran calling America names is enough to get your panties wet.

I am sure you will object that if Iran decides to harm America it would be wrong, but wait. They can do it if its they decide its in their interest no matter how morally repugnant it is, because, why because you said so. The country is more than just morals, so its A-Ok.

[Lord of the Abyss]

So, you admit that you hope for your enemies' success, when their goal is to decrease your ability to influence that region. This is a good thing for you because...?

First, America is sufficiently thuggish that I don't really care if it's good for America or not.

Yeah, you only live there, don't you?

So ? I have to live somewhere. I'm concerned with whether or not what a country is doing happens to be right, not whether I happen to live there.

So Ryan, is it idiotic to argue against your countries interest if the countries interest is immoral. Yes or no. And why?

Yes. Because your country is more than just you and your morals.

So, if America were profitably rendering Iraqi children down into gasoline, I shouldn't complain because my objections would be < shudder > moral ones ?

There are more important things than my nations interest, just as there as more important things than my own personal self interest. If doing the right thing is against my or anyone else's nations interests, then too bad for those interests as far as I'm concerned.

Not that your "do anything that profits us and screw anyone who gets in the way" strategy has worked all that well for our oh-so-important interests. Most of our foreign policy revolves around dealing with the damage caused by people with your attitude. Including the whole issue of Iran, which became an Islamic state in part thanks to our screwing with them. Which we thought was just fine, because it was in our interest.

[Ryan Thunder]

So, if America were profitably rendering Iraqi children down into gasoline, I shouldn't complain because my objections would be < shudder > moral ones ?

I've had enough of this bullfuckery.

It is not in your interests for Iran to have nukes. They support active terrorist groups in the Middle East. Regardless of your screeching to the contrary, you (the Americans) do not do this. Never mind that the likelihood of any of your nuclear material ever being used, much less falling into the hands of any such group, is virtually nil.

Either give me a reason why this does not make them a threat to you, or concede.

[Darth Yoshi]

They support Mid-East terrorist groups because Americans keep meddling in the region. Moreover, so what if they do? That doesn't mean they'll start handing out nukes. People said the same thing about North Korea, and I've yet to see a nuclear terrorist attack thanks to them. Or anyone, for that matter.

[Lord of the Abyss]

So, if America were profitably rendering Iraqi children down into gasoline, I shouldn't complain because my objections would be < shudder > moral ones ?

I've had enough of this bullfuckery.

In other words, you aren't going to answer because then you'd have to admit that some things ARE more important than national interest. OR you'd have to admit you really are the sort of monster who'd sacrifice children for cheaper gas.

It is not in your interests for Iran to have nukes.

According to you. As far as I'm concerned, it's probably somewhere between irrelevant and beneficial.

They support active terrorist groups in the Middle East. Regardless of your screeching to the contrary, you (the Americans) do not do this.

Yes, we do; we support terrorists in Iran itself.

Never mind that the likelihood of any of your nuclear material ever being used, much less falling into the hands of any such group, is virtually nil.

And the same goes for them.

Why do you trust them so much?

I don't. I just don't see them as the bogeymen you do. Nor do I feel that I have the right to mass murder people, and I'm therefore not offended by their quest to acquire a deterrent against us doing so.

[mr friendly guy]

I've had enough of this bullfuckery.

No one put a gun to your head and made you agree with the statement that its idiotic to argue against national interest on moral grounds. You even gave a reason for fucks sake why in your mind it was ok to do so.

So now deal with the consequences. You stated you believe in that statement. Fine. So LoA has called you out on it, and in a manner better than I could have come up with.

Why are you running away and not answering the point? Is this how the big man behaves? Ahmadinejad is most probably cowering in Iran just waiting for you to vanquish him with a round house kick Chuck Norris style.

[Ryan Thunder]

They support Mid-East terrorist groups because Americans keep meddling in the region.

Which, of course, is quite possibly the most pathetic excuse imaginable.

Moreover, so what if they do? That doesn't mean they'll start handing out nukes. People said the same thing about North Korea, and I've yet to see a nuclear terrorist attack thanks to them. Or anyone, for that matter.

North Korea isn't run by Islamic fundamentalists.

It is not in your interests for Iran to have nukes.

According to you. As far as I'm concerned, it's probably somewhere between irrelevant and beneficial.

They support active terrorist groups in the Middle East. Regardless of your screeching to the contrary, you (the Americans) do not do this.

Yes, we do; we support terrorists in Iran itself.

Who? We know Iran supports Hezbollah, who do you believe your country is supporting in Iran, and when was the last time they were even considered newsworthy?

Never mind that the likelihood of any of your nuclear material ever being used, much less falling into the hands of any such group, is virtually nil.

And the same goes for them.

Uh, no. We've already been over this before. Their security is simply not as good as yours because they entrust it to their Republican Guard, which is composed of religious fanatics. Not the greatest psychological controls they have there.

Why do you trust them so much?

I don't. I just don't see them as the bogeymen you do. Nor do I feel that I have the right to mass murder people, and I'm therefore not offended by their quest to acquire a deterrent against us doing so.

Don't you get it? There's more to this than just nukes, you moron. If they get working nuclear deterrent you are finished in that region until they feel like having you back. You lose the ability to do any number of things to influence them. Whether you end up doing them or not is irrelevant because you are removing those options from the table by allowing the Iranians to have nukes. You are handing them control of that area.

[SirNitram]

They support Mid-East terrorist groups because Americans keep meddling in the region.

Which, of course, is quite possibly the most pathetic excuse imaginable.

Don't be silly. It's in their national interest. See? Other people can decree things are in the interest of groups without even a scrap of evidence too!

[mr friendly guy]

Don't you get it? There's more to this than just nukes, you moron. If they get working nuclear deterrent you are finished in that region until they feel like having you back. You lose the ability to do any number of things to influence them. Whether you end up doing them or not is irrelevant because you are removing those options from the table by allowing the Iranians to have nukes. You are handing them control of that area.

So its in Iran's interest to have nukes? Who would have thought that?

The million dollar question is, given what you have already said about national interest overiding even things like morality, why then under your immoral system, are they not allowed to do so? After all, its in their national interest.

To top it all off they would achieve what they wanted, end of American influence without even needing to get the nukes to a terrorist organisation.

[Lusankya]

What happens when America's national interest goes against the interests of humanity? Would LoA still be stupid for disagreeing with American policy to further their national interests, because he should be a proper American, dammit?

[mr friendly guy]

No, he obviously is a dirty bleeding heart liberal. Why do they hate America?

These people who take the view my country right or wrong make me sick. Of course Ryan Thunder isn't one of them, since he is from Canada. But I bet he secretly wished he was an American since he is arguing harder than the Americans on this board.

[Darth Yoshi]

Which, of course, is quite possibly the most pathetic excuse imaginable.

Don't tell me that. I'm not the one in charge of Iranian foreign policy. That's the justification the Iranians use, because like has been said already, it's in their national interest to support terrorist groups as a response to American meddling.

North Korea isn't run by Islamic fundamentalists.

Yeah, and? What's your point? N.Korea is run by a cult-of-personality.

Don't you get it? There's more to this than just nukes, you moron. If they get working nuclear deterrent you are finished in that region until they feel like having you back. You lose the ability to do any number of things to influence them. Whether you end up doing them or not is irrelevant because you are removing those options from the table by allowing the Iranians to have nukes. You are handing them control of that area.

So? The only reason the Middle East is important is because it's got oil. If we go by your assertion that national interest is the be-all-end-all, then Iran getting nukes and locking us out of the region is a good thing, because it'll give alternative energy development a much needed kick in the pants, stimulating the economy and taking steps against global warming