US rattling the saber

[Shroom Man 777]

Way to miss the point there stas boy.

I dont see how Iranian dominance of their region is any better than American dominance. If america is bad then Iranians are worse. I have no idea about whether bombing Iran would work or not because thats an air force persons job. In my opinion given US militarys recent failures its just going to be a sorry clusterfuck that creates nothing other than international drama. Anyway I just think Iran is a tyrannical country with no freedom.

Show me when Iran has sponsored a secular (thus good, rite!) dictatorship that uses WMDs on its own people, Kurds, and Iranians like what the US did with Saddam. Show me when Iran has invaded another nation in false pretense, with lies and deceit to bring other nations in cahoots with its pre-emptive strike. Show me when Iran has sponsored dictatorships in Latin America, Asia, and the rest of the Third World. Because those are all the fruits of American dominance, and if Iranians are bad then the Americans are worse in that regard. Anyway I just think America is a dangerous country that's killed a whole lot of people and gotten away with it scott-free.

[Shroom Man 777]

Here's some fun facts I found on wikipedia re: public opinion on Iranian nukes.

The 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll, Survey of the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, College Park conducted in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE in March 2008 noted the following as a key finding.[198]

"In contrast with the fears of many Arab governments, the Arab public does not appear to see Iran as a major threat. Most believe that Iran has the right to its nuclear program and do not support international pressure to force it to curtail its program. A plurality of Arabs (44%) believes that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, the outcome would be more positive for the region than negative."

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation and a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council abstained from a vote in March 2008 on a U.N. resolution to impose a third set of sanctions on Iran.[199] It was the only country out of the 10 non-permanent members to abstain. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono speaking at a joint news conference with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran in March 2008 said[200]

"Iran's nuclear program is of a peaceful nature and must not be politicized"

Pakistan, which has the second largest Muslim population in the world is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and already possesses nuclear weapons.

But wait, there's more!

The Non-Aligned Movement has said that the present situation whereby Nuclear Weapon States monopolise the right to possess nuclear weapons is "highly discriminatory", and they have pushed for steps to accelerate the process of nuclear disarmament.[206]

On September 16, 2006 in Havana, Cuba, all of the 118 Non-Aligned Movement member countries, at the summit level, declared supporting Iran's nuclear program for civilian purposes in their final written statement.[207] That is a clear majority of the 192 countries comprising the entire United Nations, which comprise 55% of the world population.

On September 11, 2007 the Non-Aligned Movement rejected any "interference" in Iran's nuclear transparency deal with U.N. inspectors by Western countries through the UN Security Council.[37]

On July 30, 2008 the Non-Aligned Movement welcomed the continuing cooperation of Iran with the IAEA and reaffirmed Iran's right to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The movement further called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East and called for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument which prohibits threats of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

July 31, 2006: The UN Security Council gives until August 31, 2006 for Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and related activities or face the prospect of sanctions [6]. The draft passed by a vote of 14-1 (Qatar, which represents Arab states on the council, opposing).

Looks like some countries don't like to see Iran fucked, because they never said that they didn't like Iran!

A plurality of Shroomrabs (44%) believes that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, the outcome would be more positive for the region than negative.

[Kane Starkiller]

Nuking Israel would get Iran nuked back by not only Israel, but also America as well - thus it's as likely as Pakistan nuking New Delhi, which is not very. And it's not like other powers have not issued statements threatening Iran as well.

That's very easy to say for someone who doesn't have any responsibility for Israel's safety. Again: it takes a few nukes to practically destroy Israel as a functioning country. Counting on Iran to do the right thing is a bit too much of a risk.

Iran's past deeds? Specifically, which ones? And how are these past deeds any worse than the acts of other accepted nuclear powers? How do these show that it can't be trusted with nukes? Other nuclear powers (including those that no longer exist, like the Soviet Union) seem trustworthy enough, despite/inspite of their own past deeds.

Driving towards Iraq even after it sued for peace while at the same time proclaiming the intent to install Islamic Republic in Iraq and declaring intent to occupy Jerusalem which would also take it through Jordan. Supporting Hamas, Hezbollah etc.
Secondly, as I pointed out several times, destabilization caused by Iran's nukes is not negated by pointing out that there are other unstable regimes with nukes.

Just how different or worse is Iran compared to a whole bunch of other nuclear powers who are "trusted" with nukes?

US, France and UK are all democracies while Iran is a theocracy which called for the destruction of Israel several times. Pakistan certainly isn't trustworthy and is quite unstable but that doesn't somehow make it OK for Iran to have nukes.

Nukes for all just creates a massive deterrent-filled world. It decreases the chances of large conventional war massively.

Quite certainly a case can be made that nukes can deter even a theocracy or a heavily religious government. In fact, aren't Israel's nukes meant to deter Islamist nations? And if so, if we consider that this deterrence in principle exists, then why would we not assume the same for other nations?

So far I have not seen any conclusive evidence that a nuclear Iran is more dangerous than the alternatives.

And while I can understand the safety of nuclear weapons as massive deterrent WMDs, I cannot say the same for other types of weapons one can make when forced to. Can you?

Do you really want to bolster Iran's theocracy by constantly posturing against it?

Every extra tank or soldier creates a little more deterrence. Obviously nuclear weapons decreases the chances someone will attack you. However it is not enough to make a simple qualitative statement because the consequences in case of a war rise dramatically. If nuclear weapons decrease the chances of a war by a factor of 3 but increase the casualties by a factor of 15 then that is not really an improvement is it?
Obviously from Iran's perspective having nuclear weapons would be good. But as far as the rest of the world is concerned it merely increases the danger and consequences in case of a war. Hence the question is should other countries allow it not whether Iran's regime finds it useful.

I'd like those in support of American military intervention in Iran to explain to me what form this intervention is supposed to take, and what they think it'll accomplish in the long term. Because if you ask me, even if we optimistically assume that the US Air Force will be able to wipe out the entirety of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, I strongly doubt such a course of action will endear the USA to the average Iranian. In fact, it would seem the sort of thing that could potentially severely set back the efforts of the Iranian opposition to effect democratic reforms by virtue of proving right pretty much every anti-American propaganda piece the Iranian government has put out in recent years and giving those currently in power an excuse to clamp down on the opposition in the face of foreign aggression.

So now your strikes have entrenched the regime in charge of Iran and any chance of US-Iranian rapprochement or positive internal Iranian reforms in the short to mid term is gone. To me, that doesn't really sound like a good outcome -- particularly since you haven't actually resolved the situation at all: the Iranian regime is still the same as before, and in all likelihood the guys in charge will try even harder to find a deterrent, any deterrent, to prevent future US attacks. WMD are still their best bet, so now you have a furious Iranian regime, in charge of a nation which conducts plenty advanced biological and genetic research, trying even harder to develop deterrent capabilities than before. And that's assuming a best-case outcome of US air strikes, i.e. all nuclear infrastructure is annihilated to the point where the whole nuclear program is a write-off.

Yeah, that'll end well.

Obviously planning the attack and assessing the likelihood of success and whether casualties are acceptable is a job for military and civilian leadership of concerned countries and advisers not amateurs on a internet forum.
Making friends with Iranians is the optimal solution but at the end of the day the question is again: can ayatollahs be allowed to have nuclear weapons even if attacking means making enemies out of Iranian people and further entrenching the regime.
Secondly if US hammers Iran now what makes you think they'll be so eager to try WMDs again? Or if no one does anything about Iran and they do get nuclear weapons what is stopping any other country with nuclear (or biological/genetic/chemical WMD) ambitions to do research?

A plurality of Shroomrabs (44%) believes that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, the outcome would be more positive for the region than negative.

It wouldn't be the first time populace doesn't know what's best for them.

[Flagg]

So when Saudi Arabia kills for sodomy, it's okay. But not Iran, no!!!

Only American client states are allowed to be fucking murderous theocracies. Heh. Like I said before, the question is not one of opposing theocracy; the question boils down to American interests.

We're loosing sight of the issue again. The issue is should a theocratic regime be allowed to have nukes. It's not an issue of opposing a theocracy but stopping a theocracy from acquiring nuclear weapons. There is a big difference.

Why shouldn't a theocracy be allowed nukes?

How would a nuclear-armed Iran be dangerous to America? Certainly it can't be to America, unless Iran develops ICBMs, and even then a nuclear-armed Iran will certainly never use its nuclear weapons because nuclear retaliation will certainly doom it - and the destruction it will incur by using nuclear arms will be far greater than any damage it can do to anyone else (unless somehow Iran gets the billion megaton nuke mentioned earlier).
Also, America has done more to threaten Iran than Iran actually has done to America itself. Nuclear arms won't change the fact that Iran will still be terribly limited, and can't touch America at all.

US is not the only country in the world. Nuclear armed Iran would be a threat to every country in the Middle East. The first being Israel which can basically be destroyed with two or three nukes.
Iran is the largest and most populous country in the Middle East (not counting Turkey) and has issued statements threatening Israel and statements about pushing to Jerusalem (which would take them through Iraq and Jordan).

And Israel has repeatedly rattled the saber against Iran, threatening air-strikes. Also, when was the last time Iran invaded it's neighbor countries on a whim? When was the last time Israel did? You think Israel would be able to throw it's dick around and bomb it's neighbors at will with the sword of Iranian Damocles hanging over it's head?

And while Iran has fucked up many a time, just by virtue of doing something doesn't make their actions wrong either. What's wrong with Iran's possession of nuclear arms, to defend against American interventionism?

Sure it does: theocracy getting nukes is wrong. Thus stopping them, provided it can be done reliably and with minimal casualties, is good. Iran's past deeds and internal workings are relevant since they demonstrate they can't be trusted with nukes.
US past deeds might be a part of the reason why Iran wants to have nukes but they don't change the fact it can't be trusted with those nukes. Your name switching doesn't change that.

Why shouldn't a theocracy be allowed to have nukes? You say it's wrong as if it's a fact and not your stupid opinion. What in Irans past makes it inherently dangerous for it to have nuclear weapons? Are they actively conspiring with a superpower to launch strikes against Israel? No? Then shut the fuck up.

[Siege]

Obviously planning the attack and assessing the likelihood of success and whether casualties are acceptable is a job for military and civilian leadership of concerned countries and advisers not amateurs on a internet forum.

That's not what I asked. What I asked was for you to explain what intervention will positively accomplish in the long term. How is it that military intervention against the Iranian nuclear program will do more for the security and stability of the region than simply allowing said program to continue apace? Because that is what you seem to be arguing -- that bombing the shit out of Iran now is preferable to leaving them alone, even though you have yet to prove that Iran is actually working on nuclear weapons in the first place.

Let's not forget that so far US concerns are based solely on the fact that Iran could theoretically use its nuclear facilities to enrich uranium to the point where the stuff could be used in weapons. Insofar as I know there currently exists no proof that Iran is doing so, or even has the ambition to do so. Certainly the Iranians themselves have denied harbouring any nuclear ambitions. And yet, you seem to be in favour of intervention. I'm asking you to explain what you think will happen to Iran after the USAF flattens all those nuclear facilities. Do you think that in the aftermath of the air strikes the region will be more stable? Because personally I'm convinced intervention will worsen, not improve, regional stability.

Making friends with Iranians is the optimal solution but at the end of the day the question is again: can ayatollahs be allowed to have nuclear weapons even if attacking means making enemies out of Iranian people and further entrenching the regime.

I've seen this argument several times in this thread: Iran is a theocracy, and thus its leaders cannot be trusted with atom bombs. I find this reasoning quite unconvincing: despite thirty years of Islamic rule Iran has launched no wars of choice, and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei announced in 2006 that Iran has no intention of striking first in a war. Certainly if the ayatollahs are the insane fundamentalists so many people take them for, they're taking their sweet time unleashing the global jihad. They haven't done anything of the kind so far... What makes you think they'll suddenly change their mind as soon as they get their hands on a nuke or two?

Don't get me wrong, I have no particular sympathy for theocracies, much less for the Islamic Republic of Iran. But there is preciously little reason to think the people at the helm there are imperialists waiting to happen.

Secondly if US hammers Iran now what makes you think they'll be so eager to try WMDs again?

Because they'll have a good reason to do so: clearly they won't be able to rest safely until they have the means to deter the USA from attacking them in the future. Because military intervention will likely radicalise the Iranian leadership, and massively diminish the influence of moderate reformists. Because it'll prove right every piece of anti-American rhetoric the Iranians put out. Because it'll prove to the Iranians that it's useless to try and cooperate with the international community because America will bomb it anyway. And I've probably missed a few reasons. Right now Iran is making at least a token effort to accommodate the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council; air strikes would remove any need to even try and be cooperative. Even if they don't attempt to develop WMD after the strikes, you'll still have made things worse by increasing tensions between Iran and anyone who leans toward the USA -- in other words, the entire Middle East. So you'll still have made things worse, not better.

Or if no one does anything about Iran and they do get nuclear weapons what is stopping any other country with nuclear (or biological/genetic/chemical WMD) ambitions to do research?

That would depend on what country we're talking about, wouldn't it?

[Simon_Jester]

Like the guys in Iraq?
Doesn't affect the rightness or wrongness of the act, though.

Exactly. The Iranian nuclear program is not made more or less right by whether people in other countries love them. It's made more or less right by the context:

Will they use a nuclear deterrent responsibly (like, say, India)?
Will the nations that predictably go after their own deterrent to counter Iran also use that deterrent responsibly?

If the answer is "yes" to both, then the Iranian nuclear program isn't really wrong, any more than it would be wrong for them to purchase the latest S-700 "we kill your plane from three continents away" surface to air missile or whatever. What worries me is that I'm not sure of those answers, especially not (2).

Even if the proliferated weapons don't do any barging around and smashing things, while those superpowers continue to barge around and smash things? Certainly Pakistani, etc., nukes have killed less people than loose-cannon superpowers' barging and smashing. You can easily do the math by counting corpses.

There's a catch: body counts go up really fast the first time the nukes fly. Nobody knows how likely a nuclear war really is, because (thank God!) we haven't had enough of them to collect statistics. And nobody wants to find out.

It's definitely true that one loose-cannon superpower is worse than zero nuclear wars. And that so far, nuclear proliferation has led to zero nuclear wars. What isn't so certain, as far as I'm concerned, is whether that record of "X years since last nuclear war!" can be maintained into the future.

[Kane Starkiller]

Why shouldn't a theocracy be allowed nukes?

It's the other way around: why should a theocracy be allowed nukes. Nukes happen to be very dangerous and its up to the regime to demonstrate rational behavior (e.g. not claiming its legitimacy comes from Alah) sufficient to be allowed nukes. Of course when I say "allowed" the implication is that they can be stopped. It may very well be that no one can reliably force Iran to give up its nuclear program and we'll just have to live with it.

And Israel has repeatedly rattled the saber against Iran, threatening air-strikes. Also, when was the last time Iran invaded it's neighbor countries on a whim? When was the last time Israel did? You think Israel would be able to throw it's dick around and bomb it's neighbors at will with the sword of Iranian Damocles hanging over it's head?

Israel threatened air-strikes to eliminate Iran's nuclear development. Israel has a surface area of 20,000km2 half of which is desert. That makes it extremely vulnerable to nuclear attack. Israel has no "weigh" to throw around. It's a 7 million nation with surface area of 20,000km2. This is as powerful as it gets. Iran is a 1.6 million km2 nation with 70 million people. Combine that with nukes and it gets more dangerous than Israel could ever dream to be.

Why shouldn't a theocracy be allowed to have nukes? You say it's wrong as if it's a fact and not your stupid opinion. What in Irans past makes it inherently dangerous for it to have nuclear weapons? Are they actively conspiring with a superpower to launch strikes against Israel? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Theocracies are irrational and nukes blow up cities. Those are the facts. It is my opinion that nukes and irrational governments who sponsor terrorists shouldn't mix. You may disagree. Also not everyone is at the same risk from Iran's hypothetical nuclear weapons. US is very far away and a very dispersed country so Iranian attack with 10 nukes would only cause limited pain but no lasting damage. Israel would cease to exist. Hence they are worried.

That's not what I asked. What I asked was for you to explain what intervention will positively accomplish in the long term. How is it that military intervention against the Iranian nuclear program will do more for the security and stability of the region than simply allowing said program to continue apace? Because that is what you seem to be arguing -- that bombing the shit out of Iran now is preferable to leaving them alone, even though you have yet to prove that Iran is actually working on nuclear weapons in the first place.

Let's not forget that so far US concerns are based solely on the fact that Iran could theoretically use its nuclear facilities to enrich uranium to the point where the stuff could be used in weapons. Insofar as I know there currently exists no proof that Iran is doing so, or even has the ambition to do so. Certainly the Iranians themselves have denied harbouring any nuclear ambitions. And yet, you seem to be in favour of intervention. I'm asking you to explain what you think will happen to Iran after the USAF flattens all those nuclear facilities. Do you think that in the aftermath of the air strikes the region will be more stable? Because personally I'm convinced intervention will worsen, not improve, regional stability.

Intervention, if successful, will eliminate Iranian nuclear program or set it back thus compelling Iranians to reevaluate their position. Do they want to try it again and have it all blown up all over again? Intervention will most definitely cause some kind of Iranian response, which has probably already been accounted for by US military so the actual strike, if it comes, will not be limited only to nuclear facilities but will also include other military targets to deprive Iran of its ability to retaliate. I never said I was all for immediate strike. I hope this will be resolved peacefully and even if Iran presses on with nuclear development I would not be in favor of a strike if it would mean large casualties.

I've seen this argument several times in this thread: Iran is a theocracy, and thus its leaders cannot be trusted with atom bombs. I find this reasoning quite unconvincing: despite thirty years of Islamic rule Iran has launched no wars of choice, and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei announced in 2006 that Iran has no intention of striking first in a war. Certainly if the ayatollahs are the insane fundamentalists so many people take them for, they're taking their sweet time unleashing the global jihad. They haven't done anything of the kind so far... What makes you think they'll suddenly change their mind as soon as they get their hands on a nuke or two?

Don't get me wrong, I have no particular sympathy for theocracies, much less for the Islamic Republic of Iran. But there is preciously little reason to think the people at the helm there are imperialists waiting to happen.

If I thought Iran will unleash hell the moment it got nuclear weapons I would be advocating immediate nuclear strike and civilian casualties be damned. However I don't think that Iran will definitely strike merely that it is a possibility and due to its nature as a theocracy and its support for terrorist groups the chances of Iran causing trouble is more likely. It doesn't have to be nuclear strike, it can be a conventional invasion of countries like Iraq or Kuwait under the nuclear umbrella. The fact that they didn't unleash any wars doesn't tell us anything since they are too weak currently to attack their neighbors.

[Ryan Thunder]

It may very well be that no one can reliably force Iran to give up its nuclear program and we'll just have to live with it.

Nah. If they're sufficiently persistent there's always more permanent, if more expensive, options that don't involve depopulating the place.

[Siege]

Intervention, if successful, will eliminate Iranian nuclear program or set it back thus compelling Iranians to reevaluate their position. Do they want to try it again and have it all blown up all over again? Intervention will most definitely cause some kind of Iranian response, which has probably already been accounted for by US military so the actual strike, if it comes, will not be limited only to nuclear facilities but will also include other military targets to deprive Iran of its ability to retaliate. I never said I was all for immediate strike. I hope this will be resolved peacefully and even if Iran presses on with nuclear development I would not be in favor of a strike if it would mean large casualties.

Again, that's not really an answer to the question I asked. I asked what intervention will positively accomplish in the long term; stating that it will eliminate the Iranian nuclear program is the immediate result of military intervention (or so you hope), not a long term effect. What effect do you think air strikes will have on the political situation in Iran, and how do you think that will influence the safety and stability of the region? Remember that we're talking about a nation with half a million men at arms and a reasonably modern military; bombing them (in other words, committing an act of war against the Islamic Republic of Iran) might not have the positive long-term effect you're looking for.

A lot of people seem to be focusing on the immediate goal here: elimination of the Iranian nuclear program. I don't think that's a good idea, but even if you think it is it's wise to keep in mind that military intervention will have a long-term consequences - political, strategic, economical, etc. - for Iran and its vicinity. These consequences probably can't be fully predicted beforehand (it's a fair bet the CIA and SIS didn't expect the return of Khomeini when they plotted Operation Ajax in '52), but you should at least give some consideration to the political and strategic effects of military action against Iran and I'm just not seeing any of that right now. Iran is a pressure-cooker of competing ideologies, and I think you ought to at least think a little about the effect US military intervention would have on the country before talking about air strikes as a possible solution to what is frankly right now only a shadow of a potential problem.

If I thought Iran will unleash hell the moment it got nuclear weapons I would be advocating immediate nuclear strike and civilian casualties be damned. However I don't think that Iran will definitely strike merely that it is a possibility and due to its nature as a theocracy and its support for terrorist groups the chances of Iran causing trouble is more likely. It doesn't have to be nuclear strike, it can be a conventional invasion of countries like Iraq or Kuwait under the nuclear umbrella. The fact that they didn't unleash any wars doesn't tell us anything since they are too weak currently to attack their neighbors.

It's impossible (or rather, national suicide) to use nuclear weapons offensively, because if you do the rest of the nuclear club will come down on you like a ton of bricks, followed shortly thereafter by the rest of the world. You can't hand an atom bomb to terrorists either, because if they initiate a warhead someplace the nuclear materials will be traced back to their source, and then bricks will come down on you. I further posit that the best way to keep Iran out of Iraq is not to bomb Iran, but to make sure the Iraqis are capable of repelling a hypothetical Iranian attack. And like I said earlier, I'm not convinced by the "but they're a theocracy" argument. Thirty years of precedent prove that Iran is clearly not an imperialist nation with ambitions of regional conquest and if you believe differently it's entirely up to you to prove it. Finally I would also point out that, as I believe Shroom has said earlier, the United States is a representative democracy and yet that has not stopped it from invading the shit out of countries large and small, so why a theocracy has to be worse than other forms of government in terms of ambitions of conquest is frankly quite beyond me.

Nah. If they're sufficiently persistent there's always more permanent, if more expensive, options that don't involve depopulating the place.

Like what?

[Lusankya]

Theocracies are irrational

How exactly is Iran irrational in its foreign policy dealings? They still exist, which means that whatever they are doing is more successful that whatever the (secular) Saddam Hussein was doing. The ruling elite is still in power, which means they're doing something right there. The population has a reasonable standard of living, which is also good. In fact, by all counts except for the "being bestest buds with America" one, they seem to be doing quite well. Far better than Pakistan and North Korea, to take two nuclear-armed nations as examples. This doesn't really scream out "irrational" to me. One could even argue that "being bestest buds with America" isn't necessarily a goal that one should aim for, since really it's just trading a certain amount of independence and cultural autonomy for a modicum of security, and choosing one over the other is really just a matter of which is more important.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that theocracies are inherently irrational (you know - something shown in their actions, rather than just their domestic propaganda rhetoric)? Or are you just banking on the fact that if you say "theocracies are irrational" and "they can't because they're a theocracy" enough times each post, people will just start believing you, just like they started believing that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 because the media used the two words together often enough?

It is my opinion that nukes and irrational governments who sponsor terrorists shouldn't mix.

This quote is hilarious, because it means that you don't believe that the US should have nuclear weapons.

[mr friendly guy]

I should point out that democracies aren't necessarily rational either, being reliant on the fact that most of the voting public would be rational, a very dubious proposition, if the example of America is anything to go by. I would argue a meritocracy would be more rational by since its leaders are selected by merit rather than popularity since the two do not always go together. While democracy has many advantages over a theocracy saying that one is not rational (and by implication the other is) isn't one of the advantages. Oops, I guess that just demolishes Kane Bullshitter's argument. But don't worry, he will no doubt come back with a giant strawman or red herring.

But lets sum up the position of the hawks when discussing any country which competes against the US.

1. <insert country here> is bad for the world is they become stronger blah blah blah.

2. When you point out that there is no evidence for this (usually the countries don't invade other faraway nations on bullshit reasons) and that the US has done worse, their response is two fold

a) defend US actions like the clusterfuck in Iraq with arguments which boil down to "its not thaaaat bad." Examples are it wasn't "A false flag operation" or "it wasn't attacked on a whim", because we all know that a bullshit reason is soooo much better than no reason at all.

b) shift the goalposts and say that the other country isn't as bad simply because they aren't as strong. They will base this on either their fiat assertion or statements like they treat their citizens badly therefore they will treat other citizens badly.

The problem with these arguments are i) unless you have a crystal ball you can't prove they will do worse in the future, its pure fiat.

ii) The second argument is contradicted by numerous real world examples. Even on a small scale there are criminals who abuse their family but haven't been caught for ages because while interacting with society at large they haven't behaved illegally. No doubt morons will try and strawman that to say that comparing these other countries to family abusers doesn't make them in a good light totally missing the point that its possible for someone to behave bad at home but good outside. And when discussing their effects on the world at large we should focus on how they interact outside their borders.

3. Say they would rather have a few hypocrites, eg US, China, Russia etc than have more countries with <insert ability here>. This of course is still dependent on proving <insert country here> is particularly dangerous (keeping in mind that no country is 100% safe but we are willing to tolerate dangerous regimes), which they prove by repeated fiat statements. At this point they don't even try to show the country is worse than the US, just that they are bad (naturally mainly bad for the US, but you know we can't have everything).

[loomer]

Israel threatened air-strikes to eliminate Iran's nuclear development. Israel has a surface area of 20,000km2 half of which is desert. That makes it extremely vulnerable to nuclear attack. Israel has no "weigh" to throw around. It's a 7 million nation with surface area of 20,000km2. This is as powerful as it gets. Iran is a 1.6 million km2 nation with 70 million people. Combine that with nukes and it gets more dangerous than Israel could ever dream to be.

Fucking tell that to the Lebanese, asshole.

[Simon_Jester]

It's the other way around: why should a theocracy be allowed nukes. Nukes happen to be very dangerous and its up to the regime to demonstrate rational behavior (e.g. not claiming its legitimacy comes from Alah) sufficient to be allowed nukes.

Wait a minute.

This implies that the international community gets to decide whether any one nation has a "right" to a nuclear arsenal, if it feels it needs one. And that skips over a huge question... because I can't think of a single time when the international community has exercised its supposed power to make this decision.

So far, all the major nuclear powers decided to get The Bomb on their own initiative, usually for their own reasons. So did all the minor ones. None of them filed an application for a nuclear weapons permit with the UN before doing so.

Why is Iran subject to this requirement, when nations such as France, India, and Russia were not?

[Uraniun235]

My question is, how is this decision enforced? Because I really don't feel like paying for another invasion.

[loomer]

Surgical air strikes and possibly some mild spec-ops work. Basically, the sort of stuff you're doing in Pakistan, only without the permission of the government in power and with far higher risk to the sorties (which will need human pilots. You can't really use UAVs for this yet.)

[Ma Deuce]

Why is Iran subject to this requirement, when nations such as France, India, and Russia were not?

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. All the the NPT signatories that have nukes (US, Russia, France, Britain, China) got theirs before the treaty was created. North Korea was a signatory, but withdrew in 2003. All the world's remaining nuclear powers were never signatories to begin with.

Mind you though I have never been a big fan of the NPT and will not shed any tears if it dies in the near future (which it very well may), but if Iran truly wants nukes before then, nothing stops them from withdrawing from the treaty.

[K. A. Pital]

Why is Iran subject to this requirement, when nations such as France, India, and Russia were not?

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. All the the NPT signatories that have nukes (US, Russia, France, Britain, China) got theirs before the treaty was created. North Korea was a signatory, but withdrew in 2003. All the world's remaining nuclear powers were never signatories to begin with.

Mind you though I have never been a big fan of the NPT and will not shed any tears if it dies in the near future (which it very well may), but if Iran truly wants nukes before then, nothing stops them from withdrawing from the treaty.

Maybe Iran will, once it starts working on a real bomb. So far no evidence they are making weapons even exists.

[Patrick Degan]

Israel threatened air-strikes to eliminate Iran's nuclear development. Israel has a surface area of 20,000km2 half of which is desert. That makes it extremely vulnerable to nuclear attack. Israel has no "weigh" to throw around. It's a 7 million nation with surface area of 20,000km2. This is as powerful as it gets. Iran is a 1.6 million km2 nation with 70 million people. Combine that with nukes and it gets more dangerous than Israel could ever dream to be.

And Israel has 200+ atomic bombs of its own, mated to far more capable, varied, and reliable delivery systems than what Iran has or will have at any time in the near future —plenty of "weight" to back it up, actually.

[Shroom Man 777]

That's very easy to say for someone who doesn't have any responsibility for Israel's safety. Again: it takes a few nukes to practically destroy Israel as a functioning country. Counting on Iran to do the right thing is a bit too much of a risk.

Why is it too much of a risk? Mutually assured destruction will "force" Iran to do the "right thing", namely the not-stupid thing like not using its nukes.

What would make Iran any more different from the nuclear powers in the past? We can't count Iran to do the right thing, but we can count on Pakistan to do the right thing, and the Soviet Union, and....?

Driving towards Iraq even after it sued for peace while at the same time proclaiming the intent to install Islamic Republic in Iraq and declaring intent to occupy Jerusalem which would also take it through Jordan. Supporting Hamas, Hezbollah etc.
Secondly, as I pointed out several times, destabilization caused by Iran's nukes is not negated by pointing out that there are other unstable regimes with nukes.

What's wrong with driving into Iraq? They wanted to depose a dictator, and it turns out back then Iraq DID have WMDs too! They actually had more legitimate reason to invade Iraq then than the Americans did in 2003.

What's wrong with supporting Hamas and Hezbollah freedom fighters?

Iran's nukes would actually limit American interventionism, so it's not destabilization... more like restabilization. A nuclear-armed power in the region would discourage conventional conflict, as per the example of India and Pakistan, etc.

US, France and UK are all democracies while Iran is a theocracy which called for the destruction of Israel several times. Pakistan certainly isn't trustworthy and is quite unstable but that doesn't somehow make it OK for Iran to have nukes.

Who gives a crap about Iranian rhetoric? Does American rhetoric, with outlawings of Soviet Unions and bombings in five minutes and evil empires and actual-factual aggressive actions (like the myriad underhanded CIA shit) makes America certainly not trustworthy. Does Soviet Union rhetoric, with burying people and global revolution and Cuban missile crisises, make the USSR certainly not trustworthy and quite unstable?

These precedents show that Iran can be a workable nuclear power - because your arguments can be applied to Pakistan, can be applied to the USSR, can be applied to the US, and so on. Yet, somehow, Pakistan/USSR/US haven't done the things that you're afraid Iran will do. What makes Iran super-special?

Every extra tank or soldier creates a little more deterrence. Obviously nuclear weapons decreases the chances someone will attack you. However it is not enough to make a simple qualitative statement because the consequences in case of a war rise dramatically. If nuclear weapons decrease the chances of a war by a factor of 3 but increase the casualties by a factor of 15 then that is not really an improvement is it?
Obviously from Iran's perspective having nuclear weapons would be good. But as far as the rest of the world is concerned it merely increases the danger and consequences in case of a war. Hence the question is should other countries allow it not whether Iran's regime finds it useful.

Then I guess other countries should fuck off and NOT provoke Iran by trying to bomb its facilities, or invading countries right next to it, right?

The likelihood of a nuclear Iran, or a non-nuclear Iran, going to nuclear or non-nuclear war with anyone is dependent not just on Iran's armament - but also on the actions of the powers outside Iran, whether or not they're aggressive or not.

Jesus, look at Iran's history. They haven't launched an aggressive war, AT ALL, EVER. Compare that to America Fuck Yeah, that's a fucking stark contrast.

A plurality of Shroomrabs (44%) believes that if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, the outcome would be more positive for the region than negative.

It wouldn't be the first time populace doesn't know what's best for them.

Why do you hate democracy and freedom?

Like the guys in Iraq?
Doesn't affect the rightness or wrongness of the act, though.

Exactly. The Iranian nuclear program is not made more or less right by whether people in other countries love them. It's made more or less right by the context:

Will they use a nuclear deterrent responsibly (like, say, India)?
Will the nations that predictably go after their own deterrent to counter Iran also use that deterrent responsibly?

If the answer is "yes" to both, then the Iranian nuclear program isn't really wrong, any more than it would be wrong for them to purchase the latest S-700 "we kill your plane from three continents away" surface to air missile or whatever. What worries me is that I'm not sure of those answers, especially not (2).

The existing nuclear powers, and the nuclear powers that have existed, have so far used their nuclear weapons responsibly since we're not a postapocalyptic wasteland full of Humunguses and Thunderdomes.

Those existing nuclear powers, and nuclear powers that have existed, have not demonstrated themselves to be that better or worse, or that different than Iran at all. The whole point of mentioning the shitload of American atrocities is to show how, despite this, America - and other morally bankrupt nations - have acted responsibly with their nuclear weapons.

No one of the anti-nuclear Iran crowd has shown what makes Iran so different.

Even if the proliferated weapons don't do any barging around and smashing things, while those superpowers continue to barge around and smash things? Certainly Pakistani, etc., nukes have killed less people than loose-cannon superpowers' barging and smashing. You can easily do the math by counting corpses.

There's a catch: body counts go up really fast the first time the nukes fly. Nobody knows how likely a nuclear war really is, because (thank God!) we haven't had enough of them to collect statistics. And nobody wants to find out.

It's definitely true that one loose-cannon superpower is worse than zero nuclear wars. And that so far, nuclear proliferation has led to zero nuclear wars. What isn't so certain, as far as I'm concerned, is whether that record of "X years since last nuclear war!" can be maintained into the future.

Well, thank goodness so far Iran hasn't really announced any intention or desire to gain nuclear weapons.

That might change, you know, if the USA actually attacks Iran - THEN they'll REALLY fucking want those nuclear weapons.

And you know what's the other consequence of this US intervention? Those hardliner theocratic assholes will have their positions strengthened, because it turns out that they were right all along. They'll gain the public's support. And those people who want to bring reform to Iran, those people who are actually fighting for change IN Iran, the reformist parties? They'll end up having to shut their mouths when this happens.

A US attack will only promote hardliner extremist policies, and it will work AGAINST domestic reform efforts. This will have negative consequences on Iran as a whole, and it'll only promote Iran's shithole theocracy.

Do we want this to happen?

But I guess people don't factor this when discussing whether or not to bomb Iran. They never discuss what kind of consequences their attacks will have on the other side.

Finally I would also point out that, as I believe Shroom has said earlier, the United States is a representative democracy and yet that has not stopped it from invading the shit out of countries large and small, so why a theocracy has to be worse than other forms of government in terms of ambitions of conquest is frankly quite beyond me.

BECAUSE ITS A THEOCRACY! T-H-E-O-C-R-A-C-Y!

It doesn't matter if Iran never initiated imperialistic wars or interventions, unlike representative democracy America Fuck Yeah which has invaded the shit out of countries large and small, because the Mohammedians pray to Mohammad and is a THEOCRACY! T-H-E-O-C-R-A-C-Y! There is no why! Just THEOCRACY! That's the word for the day!

[K. A. Pital]

They'll end up having to shut their mouths when this happens.

Or worse - not to lose public support, they will become even MORE supporting of a military answer to agression than those in power right now.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Everytime someone mentions the glorious worth of democracies at stopping war, I happily point out that Hitler also came to power via democratic elections. In the past, people waved crosses and crowns to fight wars, these days people wave the flag of freedom yada yada.

Also quite frankly, most of the people in this thread supporting the US on this sound like they are like sports fans supporting their favourite club!

[Ryan Thunder]

Finally I would also point out that, as I believe Shroom has said earlier, the United States is a representative democracy and yet that has not stopped it from invading the shit out of countries large and small, so why a theocracy has to be worse than other forms of government in terms of ambitions of conquest is frankly quite beyond me.

If you can't fathom something as fucking basic as "giving nukes to a theocracy is bad" there's really nothing further to discuss. You're all so fucking focused on trying to limit the fucking Americans that you can't seem to stop for a fucking second and think "Hey wait what are the implications of this (besides our usual AMERICA FUCK NAH bullshit?)"

What's wrong with supporting Hamas and Hezbollah freedom fighters?

That's the stupidest statement I've read in at least three weeks.

Also quite frankly, most of the people in this thread supporting the US on this sound like they are like sports fans supporting their favourite club!

Has it ever occurred to you that theocracies are bad? Don't we abhor religion in government here?

So why are you arguing that they should have nukes? Because its going to reduce America's sphere of influence. Why is this more important than denying nuclear weapons to a motherfucking theocracy?

[Shroom Man 777]

It'd be great for these guys to fess up and say that their arguments are just because Iran is a theocracy, and not what the Iranian theocracy has actually-factually done in reality or in the past. They don't consider how Iran's deeds actually compare to the atrocities done by representative democracies - that their sole reason for opposing Iran is merely the fact that it's a theocracy, without any substantiated Iranian act or deed or behavior whatsoever. Because, seriously, any substantiated Iranian act or deed or behavior can be matched tit for tat by any Western/American act or deed or behavior.

So it's not actually about what Iran has done. It's just because Iran is a theocracy. And they can't even substantiate the badness of the Iranian theocracy because Iran hasn't done anything! Or, at least, whatever Iran has done is no worse than anything the acceptable nuclear powers in the West have done (all the time).

Why is it bad for Iran to have nukes?

Because it's a theocracy!

What is so bad about Iran's theocracy?/What makes Iran's theocracy WORSE than other accepted nuclear powers?

Um... I can't provide any concrete act that substantiate how Iran's theocracy is actually worse than the other accepted nuclear powers (because the other accepted nuclear powers, and America/the West, have done even worse things)! But Iran is a theocracy! There!

How can you say that Iran's theocracy is worse than other accepted nuclear powers (when those other accepted nuclear powers, i.e. America/the West, have done things that are just as bad as Iran, if not worse)?

BECAUSE IRAN IS A THEOCRACY!

That's the stupidest statement I've read in at least three weeks.

Because Israel is so nice and kind and compassionate and loving to the Palestinians that the Palestinians have no reason at all for any conflict against the Israelis? Because there's no reason for the Palestinians to be angry at the Israelis?

[Shroom Man 777]

I mean, Jesus, if Iran's such a shit-eating theocracy then it'd be trivially easy to pick and find some sort of horrific atrocity Iran's done that'll make US dickeries in Latin America, Asia and the Middle East pale in comparison.

[Siege]

If you can't fathom something as fucking basic as "giving nukes to a theocracy is bad" there's really nothing further to discuss.

I'm repeating myself here, but let's reiterate for those amongst us who didn't catch this the first three or so times around: Iran has been an Islamic republic for thirty years. In that time they have not launched a single war of choice. Their Supreme Leader has publicly professed a doctrine of no first strike. And finally, nobody is "giving nukes" to anyone; it remains yet to be proven that Iran has the ambition to develop nuclear weapons in the first place. These things indicate that Iran is not the irrational actor you make them out to be, regardless of their form of government. If you want to argue otherwise I expect you to at least make a case with proper arguments; so far, you're not doing a terribly good job at it. Certainly I doubt many will take your wide-eyed fear peddling as some kind of self-evident truth.

You're all so fucking focused on trying to limit the fucking Americans that you can't seem to stop for a fucking second and think "Hey wait what are the implications of this (besides our usual AMERICA FUCK NAH bullshit?)"

That's pretty funny, considering that so far I haven't seen you (or anybody else in favour of intervention) explain what sort of medium to long term implications you think air strikes will have on the highly volatile political situation of Iran. In fact, I could do a pretty good Shroom-style inversion of those two sentences (I hesitate to call this an argument) simply by replacing "Americans" and "America" with "Iranians" and "Iran". The result would be exactly as convincing. That's what you get when you state your personal opinion as a priori gospel. Who knew?