US rattling the saber

[Shroom Man 777]

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....?

Again: you are stating this as a fact when in actuality you don't know what will happen and neither do Iran's neighbors. I don't trust any country with nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are too destructive to exist in large numbers.

Well... I trust Iran. So far, its track record of not launching aggressive wars, not deceiving other nations to launch those aggressive wars, and not sponsoring nerve gas-happy regimes, makes me confident about Iran.

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.

Turning Iraq into another Islamic republic would not be a good thing first of all since it would likely be absorbed by Iran so you'd have an even bigger theocratic dictatorship. Also Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups that kill people. So supporting them is bad.

But Iraq was a secular dictatorship that used nerve gas on its own people. Iran never nerve gassed its own people. Ergo, making Iraq more Iran would be better. Unless you are saying that it's better for Iraq to stay secular and nerve gas people, than it is to become theocratic and not nerve gas people?

Hamas and Hezbollah are freedom fighters that fight against the yolk of Israeli oppression.

Yes it most certainly does. Such statements cause fear because there is no way do discern "only" rhetoric from the real thing like "lebensraum" and "jews stabbing Germany in the back in WW1".

Are we judging people by what they say, or by what they do?

But they did rouse up Iraq's Shia groups which was one of the reasons Iraq invaded them and they did support terrorist groups in Israel didn't they? They haven't invaded Peru, on the other hand, but is that because they're nice or because they're too weak to get there and too small to have interests there? US is 25% of world GDP and 50% of military spending. Taking that into account it hasn't stirred that much trouble although, ideally, I would take nukes from US as well.

Then again, Israel doesn't do nice things to the Palestinians, does it?

Why do you hate democracy and freedom?

I didn't say that they aren't allowed to their opinion merely that I doubt they actually thought it through. Especially since a large percentage of them think that Iran will use the bomb on Israel so they are naturally cheering it on.

I don't doubt that they thought it through.

[Flagg]

It doesn't work like that here, dickhead. You're making the assertion, now you need to provide evidence for it.

By that logic government should prove that I'm incapable of driving before denying me a driver's license rather than me having to prove that I'm capable and responsible enough to drive. Nuclear weapons are dangerous and are not a divine right.

I'd say that's a nice attempt at dodging, but it was pretty feeble. You make an assertion and you better damned well be able to back it up. I'm still waiting for you to do so. I have a feeling I'll still be waiting when your contributions to this thread get HOS'd.

Israel probably has enough nukes to bomb the ever loving shit out of Iran should they launch weapons at Israel. It's called MAD. It's the reason the US and the USSR never threw down.

I've seen this assumption repeated many times. USSR and US never went to war. In fact in the entire history US and Russian Empire didn't go to war other than US intervention on the side of white forces during the Russian civil war. What makes you think that war without nuclear weapons was inevitable during the Cold War? Without nukes there would be no Cuban missile crisis for example. Without nuclear weapons there would be no overarching atmosphere of fear stemming from the fact your country can cease to exist in a single afternoon. Even if there was a war there wold be months in which an armistice could be signed before death toll reached anything approaching the half hour nuclear exchange.

Way to miss the point, cuntrag. The fact that in the 40+ years that the USA and USSR possessed nuclear weapons there was never a war between the two shows that MAD helps to prevent conventional wars. The fact that India and Pakistan aren't jumping up eachothers ass nearly as much as they were before both had nukes shows the same thing. Now kindly provide evidence to the contrary or go fuck thyself.

Again with the "Theocracies=Too Dangerous for Nukes" shit without any evidence to back it up. And why exactly is Israel of such special concern? They and their allies are the aggressive powers in the region, not Iran. Iran hasn't launched air-strikes on its neighbors virtually destroying their infrastructure based on the flimsiest of excuses. Iran hasn't invaded their neighbors based on lies. So again, what is so special about Iran that it shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons? Is it just because you've a hard-on for Israel and think they should be allowed to break international law at will without the threat of any sort of repercussion and a nuclear Iran would prevent that?

Ideally no one would have nukes as I already said. Iran has actually stirred quite a bit of trouble when compared to its power and reach. Stirring shit with Shia's in Iraq blew up in its face for example. Theocracies are irrational since they draw their legitimacy from "God" and teach new generations to do the same. Israel's or US wrongdoings don't somehow change this.

The fact that a form of government is irrational is in no way relevant to the issue. If it was I'm sure an erudite person such as yourself would have provided evidence to the contrary. You know, rather than just repeating the same "RAAAR THEOCRACY BAD!!!!" mantra.

[loomer]

Fucking tell that to the Lebanese, asshole.

How does this change my statement that Israel, today, is about as powerful as it's going to get?

It doesn't, but it does show how completely ridiculous and even borderline retarded claiming they've got no muscle is. I hear invading and occupying foreign nations takes some pretty significant muscle?

[K. A. Pital]

I don't believe human race should have nuclear weapons in general.

Why?

Also there is a difference in whether you are supporting terrorist organization to push out your rival (like US did in Afghanistan) or terrorist groups whose final objective is the destruction of a state (Hezbollah) or terrorist groups in order to establish additional Islamic rapublics (Shia groups in Iraq).

The task of Hezbollah and other anti-Israeli groups is to push Israelis, who are seen as occupants, out of the Middle East. You may not like it, but it's not much different from the goals of the Mujahed in Afghanistan. You're really grasping at a straw.

How does this change my statement that Israel, today, is about as powerful as it's going to get?

Israel used it's military force to trump over a nation. Not once, but many times, in fact, Israel has used overwhelming military force in wars; it also has nuclear weapons.

Again: you are stating this as a fact when in actuality you don't know what will happen and neither do Iran's neighbors. I don't trust any country with nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are too destructive to exist in large numbers.

Nuclear weapons have killed effectively zero people since 1946 onwards for all that matters. Their number, nor the number of nuclear powers (which grew progressively from 1 to did not impact this zero casualty count.

Also Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups that kill people. So supporting them is bad.

Yeah, but so is America a terrorist state which kills people. Supporting it is bad. So why do you support them attacking Iran and killing people? I don't know. What is the functional difference?

You are supporting a nation which not only supported terrorists who killed people, but also itself has killed people in wars of agression. On the other hand, Iran has only done the former, but not the latter.

Yes it most certainly does. Such statements cause fear because there is no way do discern "only" rhetoric from the real thing like "lebensraum" and "jews stabbing Germany in the back in WW1".

Does Iran profess a doctrine of lebensraum, genocide and invasion? Where is the Iranian version of Mein Kampf, then?

US is 25% of world GDP and 50% of military spending. Taking that into account it hasn't stirred that much trouble

20% of the world's GDP. "That much trouble"? I'm not sure how many of the high-casualty wars past the year 1960 have involved the USA, but quite surely it's going to be more than proportional to it's share of world's GDP.

Especially since a large percentage of them think that Iran will use the bomb on Israel so they are naturally cheering it on.

You have no evidence proving that, right? You're just thinking "Those filthy genocidal Arabs are dumb fuckers who support Iran because they want them to kill Israel". Here, see - I have made an insight into your thought process.

I've seen this assumption repeated many times. USSR and US never went to war. In fact in the entire history US and Russian Empire didn't go to war other than US intervention on the side of white forces during the Russian civil war. What makes you think that war without nuclear weapons was inevitable during the Cold War? Without nukes there would be no Cuban missile crisis for example. Without nuclear weapons there would be no overarching atmosphere of fear stemming from the fact your country can cease to exist in a single afternoon. Even if there was a war there wold be months in which an armistice could be signed before death toll reached anything approaching the half hour nuclear exchange.

Really? If there was a war without nuclear weapons, in the 1950s or 1960s, the death tolls would be massive. Conventional bombing would be used. Fighting would be ferocious as it was in World War II. There's no evidence that the leaders of the WARPAC or NATO would have for some reason initiated any sort of peace talks when a conventional war posed NO THREAT to these leaders themselves. Unlike a nuclear one, where they would most certainly be annihilated along with the rest of the populace; and even if not, their days in the post-nuclear wasteland would be few. Europe and Asia would be ruined, putting people there into a new cycle of misery.

Quite possibly, the USA would continue the war from abroad even if Europe and Asia would be ruined and occupied, bombing people and killing people for years and years, because it wouldn't really cost them any damage, the USSR lacking any ability to attack them efficiently (without nuclear weapons).

As for your misguided idea that the US and USSR never went to war for other reasons than nuclear weapons... You see, the USA constantly breached Soviet airspace and had it's military planes shot down (by contrast, the USSR didn't breach U.S. airspace with it's recon planes). This is a reasonable casus belli for a conventional war; many times such provocations were the start of more serious provocations... (which didn't start, because nuclear weapons make it too great a cost to follow on a casus belli).

The problem is we know for a fact nuclear war would be far more devastating at least an order of magnitude. Then there is the issue of radioactivity which would make land unusable for generations. That nuclear weapons decrease the likelihood of a war by a factor of 12 or so, on the other hand, is merely an unsupported assumption.

Yeah, but then, nuclear weapons can decrease the probability of conventional war by a factor of 1000 or 2000. We don't know. As for radioactivity, does it matter in a desert which is unusable anyway? Weapon radioactivity, unless it's groundbursts, decreases swiftly.

Moreover, why didn't you then evaluate a probable biological weapon programme of Iran, which would be far more unsafe (but which would likely be the case if you ruin their nuclear infrastructure)? Maybe you should.

[Shroom Man 777]

If we're counting rhetoric, Iran also said that they didn't wish to have nuclear weapons and also they said that they would never launch a first strike war of aggression - much less one based on false pretenses and international deceit.

Iran is so nice.

Not like those other meanies!

[Kane Starkiller]

First off, can you please acknowledge the fact that it remains to be proven that Iran is actually trying to acquire nuclear weapons? This is by no means certain, yet you continue to treat the theoretical possibility as an incontrovertible fact.

Obviously if there is no solid proof they are trying to build nuclear weapons they shouldn't be attacked. But what do you count as solid proof? A mushroom cloud?

Secondly, I would think it's obvious: stopping the Iranian nuclear program should be a goal to an end (that end being something like the improvement of the safety and stability of the region), not an end in and of itself.It's pointless to even wonder whether or not an end should be forcefully put to the Iranian nuclear program without considering the ramifications of stopping (or not stopping) them. Hence why you should be concerned about what the intervention you propose will achieve in the mid to long term. If intervention, even if successful, will serve to radicalise the Iranian leadership and stoke their fears and paranoia of the West and everyone who collaborates with it, how will that improve the safety and stability of the region? In my opinion, it won't, and therefore a strike against the nuclear program will worsen, not improve, the situation.

I disagree. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is an important goal in and of itself. Obviously there is concern about how the intervention will affect the long term relationship with Iran. The question is is maintaining good long term relations with Iran worth allowing Iran the capability to destroy any European city by entering a 10 digit number and pressing enter.

No, it's like seeing a guy reaching into his jacket, assuming he's going for a gun, and shooting him in the face before even making sure he's actually got a weapon on him. Before you know it you've pumped 41 shots into the guy even though he was just reaching for his wallet. Where I come from, that's not a particularly desirable outcome.

Except you repeatedly said to the guy to stop reaching into his pocket and he doesn't listen.

Hold on a minute, how is pre-emptively bombing the shit out of Iran a defence strategy? Because it sure sound like an offence strategy to me.

Because we're not using swords anymore. Nuclear weapons can wipe out cities in seconds and people can't afford to wait for an attack to come if they believe there is a heightened chance a country might use its nuclear weapons.

I'd say that's a nice attempt at dodging, but it was pretty feeble. You make an assertion and you better damned well be able to back it up. I'm still waiting for you to do so. I have a feeling I'll still be waiting when your contributions to this thread get HOS'd.

So if I go into driving school and the instructor sees me and immediately states "I don't think you can drive" I can automatically get a drivers licence because he made the assertion so now its up to him to back it up? You can't shift burden of proof like that. I'm the one who wants the get out on the street and it's up to me to prove I'm capable and responsible enough regardless of who said what first.
Iran wants to get out on the street with nuclear weapons and its up to it to prove that it's responsible enough if the world is to tolerate the risks of a yet another country that can wipe cities off the map at a push of a button. What I said or didn't say doesn't enter into it.

Way to miss the point, cuntrag. The fact that in the 40+ years that the USA and USSR possessed nuclear weapons there was never a war between the two shows that MAD helps to prevent conventional wars. The fact that India and Pakistan aren't jumping up eachothers ass nearly as much as they were before both had nukes shows the same thing. Now kindly provide evidence to the contrary or go fuck thyself.

I already addressed all of these issues in my previous post: USA and USSR NEVER went to war. Either before or after they got nukes. Therefore you have no proof it was the nukes that kept peace for the last 60 years. You also completely ignored my points that crises like installment of missiles on Cuba would never exist.
However I did provide examples to the contrary: China attacking US forces in North Korea and Argentina attacking the Falklands.

The fact that a form of government is irrational is in no way relevant to the issue. If it was I'm sure an erudite person such as yourself would have provided evidence to the contrary. You know, rather than just repeating the same "RAAAR THEOCRACY BAD!!!!" mantra.

The fact that a form of government is irrational is in no way relevant to whether they should be allowed to have the capability to arbitrarily wipe cities off the map at the push of a button? I have to say I disagree with you there. How many countries has Argentinian military junta invaded before their attack on the Falklands? If they had nuclear weapons would that have made them more or less bold? They risked a possible nuclear retaliation from UK basically to increase their approval ratings. I would say that was irrational. Do you think that ayatollahs are more rational and trustworthy than the military junta before Falklands?

I don't believe human race should have nuclear weapons in general.

Why?

Because they are too powerful and too easy to construct. North Korea, a country whose people are forced to eat grass, now likely has a capability to devastate Tokyo. Earth is too small for this bullshit.

The task of Hezbollah and other anti-Israeli groups is to push Israelis, who are seen as occupants, out of the Middle East. You may not like it, but it's not much different from the goals of the Mujahed in Afghanistan. You're really grasping at a straw.

And what does pushing Israel out of "Middle East" mean for the existence of Israel? How is this the same as pushing USSR out of Afghanistan? Just so there are no confusions both US and Iran made a calculated risk when they stirred shit for countries which have (or likely have) nuclear weapons. Iran was willing to push it a lot further and for less tangible gains.

Israel used it's military force to trump over a nation. Not once, but many times, in fact, Israel has used overwhelming military force in wars; it also has nuclear weapons.

Again: that's as big as it gets. Iran can turn into a much larger enemy and one that has called for Israel's destruction and turning Iraq into an Islamic republic.

Nuclear weapons have killed effectively zero people since 1946 onwards for all that matters. Their number, nor the number of nuclear powers (which grew progressively from 1 to did not impact this zero casualty count.

Yet. We know for a fact how powerful and devastating nuclear weapons are. You are pitting this fact against your assumption that because there were no nuclear wars yet there will be none in the future.

Yeah, but so is America a terrorist state which kills people. Supporting it is bad. So why do you support them attacking Iran and killing people? I don't know. What is the functional difference?

You are supporting a nation which not only supported terrorists who killed people, but also itself has killed people in wars of agression. On the other hand, Iran has only done the former, but not the latter.

I support someone not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, with force if necessary and if it can be done with minimum casualties. Supporting US in its wish to keep nuclear weapons of a terrorist sponsoring theocracy doesn't mean that I support US in everything that it does nor that I approve of its every aspect so I would ask you to stop using that strawman.
However as I said: US, when its power and reach and sphere of interest (entire world) is accounted for, did less bad things than Iran did with its own neighbors.

Does Iran profess a doctrine of lebensraum, genocide and invasion? Where is the Iranian version of Mein Kampf, then?

This is another strawman. I responded to Shroom Man 77 that threatening statements cannot be dismissed as "just propaganda" because often times they are not just propaganda. And even if they start out as just propaganda they can rile up the populace to a point when it starts to become an actual policy.

20% of the world's GDP. "That much trouble"? I'm not sure how many of the high-casualty wars past the year 1960 have involved the USA, but quite surely it's going to be more than proportional to it's share of world's GDP.

Yes 25% or 20% depending on whether nominal or PPP values are used. Just because US was "involved" doesn't mean it counts as part of "bad" things it did. Certainly liberating Kuwait was a good thing whatever else they did.

You have no evidence proving that, right? You're just thinking "Those filthy genocidal Arabs are dumb fuckers who support Iran because they want them to kill Israel". Here, see - I have made an insight into your thought process.

I would hope that the smiley revealed it as a joke. The fact that a large percentage of Arabs (30%) think that Iran will use the bomb on Israel comes from the poll Shroom Man 77 linked to. The other one was a joke (partly). But I grew up in a region where interethnic hatred grew rampant and that was even after we lived in a single country. If you think that such a thing doesn't exist between Israelis and Arabs you are quite naive.

Really? If there was a war without nuclear weapons, in the 1950s or 1960s, the death tolls would be massive. Conventional bombing would be used. Fighting would be ferocious as it was in World War II. There's no evidence that the leaders of the WARPAC or NATO would have for some reason initiated any sort of peace talks when a conventional war posed NO THREAT to these leaders themselves. Unlike a nuclear one, where they would most certainly be annihilated along with the rest of the populace; and even if not, their days in the post-nuclear wasteland would be few. Europe and Asia would be ruined, putting people there into a new cycle of misery.

Quite possibly, the USA would continue the war from abroad even if Europe and Asia would be ruined and occupied, bombing people and killing people for years and years, because it wouldn't really cost them any damage, the USSR lacking any ability to attack them efficiently (without nuclear weapons).

I never implied that armistice was a done deal. I said that there would still be a chance because it would take many months for the death toll to reach what can be done with nukes in hours. Secondly even if death toll in the end was equal to that of a nuclear war there would still be no widespread radiation contaminating water supply, crop fields etc. etc.

As for your misguided idea that the US and USSR never went to war for other reasons than nuclear weapons... You see, the USA constantly breached Soviet airspace and had it's military planes shot down (by contrast, the USSR didn't breach U.S. airspace with it's recon planes). This is a reasonable casus belli for a conventional war; many times such provocations were the start of more serious provocations... (which didn't start, because nuclear weapons make it too great a cost to follow on a casus belli).

I see no evidence that either US or USSR would be willing to start WW3, even if it was conventional, over some spyplane overflights. Not to mention that the main point of these spy overflights was to examine nuclear launch and test sites in USSR and that without nukes they would not be as intensive and USSR on the other hand would not consider individual breaches of its territory as threatening to its existence.
USSR never breached US airspace that we know of. If it didn't that was because it didn't have the capability not because it didn't want to. It had plenty of conventional spies all over the West.

Yeah, but then, nuclear weapons can decrease the probability of conventional war by a factor of 1000 or 2000. We don't know. As for radioactivity, does it matter in a desert which is unusable anyway? Weapon radioactivity, unless it's groundbursts, decreases swiftly.

Moreover, why didn't you then evaluate a probable biological weapon programme of Iran, which would be far more unsafe (but which would likely be the case if you ruin their nuclear infrastructure)? Maybe you should.

Yes we don't know. You are pitting your optimistic assumptions (1000 or 2000) over a known fact that nuclear weapons are millions of times more powerful than conventional of equal size and relatively cheap. And yes it matters whether there is radioactivity. A few groundbursts over crop fields and they're unusable for a century. Not so with conventional shelling.
I certainly don't think that biological weapons are OK but they are a separate issue. There are many things that can kill you but you need to take care of them one at a time.

[K. A. Pital]

But what do you count as solid proof? A mushroom cloud?

A nuclear test is a pretty solid proof of a nuclear arsenal in the making.

Because they are too powerful and too easy to construct. North Korea, a country whose people are forced to eat grass, now likely has a capability to devastate Tokyo. Earth is too small for this bullshit.

For which bullshit? Nuclear weapons have existed for 60 years. There's no way of getting rid of them. Nuclear nations will expand, that's the trend.

And what does pushing Israel out of "Middle East" mean for the existence of Israel? How is this the same as pushing USSR out of Afghanistan? Just so there are no confusions both US and Iran made a calculated risk when they stirred shit for countries which have (or likely have) nuclear weapons. Iran was willing to push it a lot further and for less tangible gains.

So what? Israel occupies the territory of another state with it's own territory. One could say also, "what does pushing the USSR out of the Baltic nations mean for the existence of the USSR"? Don't you hold the view that de-jure incorporated territories of a nation may not, in fact, be it's territories by any sort of right? And if so, where's the difference, anyhow? That the entirety of Israel is an occupied territory? That's a difference, sure, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel occupied land through political force-shoving since it's very inception.

Again: that's as big as it gets. Iran can turn into a much larger enemy and one that has called for Israel's destruction and turning Iraq into an Islamic republic.

Iran's capabilities are just about as limited. It doesn't have a direct border with Israel. Iraq, now, is likely to fall into Iran's sphere of influence, Islamic or not, regardless of whether Iran has nukes or not. That doesn't mean Iran can invade Iraq, even with nukes.

You are pitting this fact against your assumption that because there were no nuclear wars yet there will be none in the future.

It's a high probability that there won't be, because nuclear weapons are that powerful.

Supporting US in its wish to keep nuclear weapons of a terrorist sponsoring theocracy doesn't mean that I support US in everything that it does nor that I approve of its every aspect so I would ask you to stop using that strawman.

The USA is a terrorist-sponsoring democracy. I don't see a functional difference, unless we were to assume that Iran's theocratic doctrine calls for nuclear apocalypse or something.

However as I said: US, when its power and reach and sphere of interest (entire world) is accounted for, did less bad things than Iran did with its own neighbors.

How so? It engaged in terrorism all over the world AND wars of agression. Iran engaged in terrorism in it's region AND launched no wars of agression.

This is another strawman.

It's not. Hitler's statements called for what he did. Have the leaders of Iran professed their will to omnicide Israel? I'm not up-to-date on that, but if they did, that's a reason for concern indeed.

Just because US was "involved" doesn't mean it counts as part of "bad" things it did. Certainly liberating Kuwait was a good thing whatever else they did.

Yeah, it doesn't. However, even without positive involvement, there's tons and tons of things they did which can't be "good" at all.

If you think that such a thing doesn't exist between Israelis and Arabs you are quite naive.

I do think it exists. I also do not consider bombing them to fuel more ethnic and religious hatred is a good solution.

I see no evidence that either US or USSR would be willing to start WW3

Me neither, but if they were reckless enough to make provocations WITH nuclear weapons, it's reasonable to assume the fear threshold of the leadership would be lower without nukes. Ergo, increased chance of conventional war(s).

I certainly don't think that biological weapons are OK but they are a separate issue. There are many things that can kill you but you need to take care of them one at a time.

No, you should evaluate the options. The option is not "Iran without WMDs" - once you bomb Iran and they become hellishly upset, they'll likely start looking for other WMD possibilities because they would now be sure you won't stop if you need to attack them. So you should understand that a denial of nuclear weapons now can mean a nuclear or biologically armed Iran in the future.

And a more, far more upset one, at that.

[Shroom Man 777]

First off, can you please acknowledge the fact that it remains to be proven that Iran is actually trying to acquire nuclear weapons? This is by no means certain, yet you continue to treat the theoretical possibility as an incontrovertible fact.

Obviously if there is no solid proof they are trying to build nuclear weapons they shouldn't be attacked. But what do you count as solid proof? A mushroom cloud?

How about the existence of an actual-factual nuclear weapons program? Or are American/Western intelligence agencies so fucking incompetent that they can't even tell when a nation's developing nuclear weapons until it's detonated one right in their faces?

actually when it detonates right there in their faces, the flash out will also blind them, so they STILL can't tell anything since now they can't SEE anything! hurrr!

I disagree. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is an important goal in and of itself. Obviously there is concern about how the intervention will affect the long term relationship with Iran. The question is is maintaining good long term relations with Iran worth allowing Iran the capability to destroy any European city by entering a 10 digit number and pressing enter.

But when Iran has nukes, this capability will also allow Iran to defend itself from any Western power that can enter 10 digit numbers and press enter to destroy any Iranian city - or any power that can enter a 1-800 number and invade Iran too. The question is, is maintaining good long term relations with America worth just allowing America to keep its capability to invade/destroy any Iranian city by entering a 10 digit number and pressing enter without fear of retaliation?

No, it's like seeing a guy reaching into his jacket, assuming he's going for a gun, and shooting him in the face before even making sure he's actually got a weapon on him. Before you know it you've pumped 41 shots into the guy even though he was just reaching for his wallet. Where I come from, that's not a particularly desirable outcome.

Except you repeatedly said to the guy to stop reaching into his pocket and he doesn't listen.

So that makes it a desirable outcome? That makes it a good act? A policeman shooting an unarmed civilian with his hands in his ass = good?

Besides, we've already seen this happen in Iraq. Whoops, no WMDs!

Hold on a minute, how is pre-emptively bombing the shit out of Iran a defence strategy? Because it sure sound like an offence strategy to me.

Because we're not using swords anymore. Nuclear weapons can wipe out cities in seconds and people can't afford to wait for an attack to come if they believe there is a heightened chance a country might use its nuclear weapons.

BUT THEY (iranian nukes) DON'T EVEN EXIST AND IRAN'S NOT EVEN DEVELOPING THEM

So if I go into driving school and the instructor sees me and immediately states "I don't think you can drive" I can automatically get a drivers licence because he made the assertion so now its up to him to back it up? You can't shift burden of proof like that. I'm the one who wants the get out on the street and it's up to me to prove I'm capable and responsible enough regardless of who said what first.
Iran wants to get out on the street with nuclear weapons and its up to it to prove that it's responsible enough if the world is to tolerate the risks of a yet another country that can wipe cities off the map at a push of a button. What I said or didn't say doesn't enter into it.

They have proven it by not launching any aggressive war in their nation's history, much less wars of aggression based on lies, mistruth and deceit. Since America can "prove" it is responsible enough to have nukes while meanwhile launching aggressive wars and sponsoring brutal regimes in its history.

Or, should Iran launch some aggressive wars and sponsor some brutal regimes to prove that its responsible to have nukes because then it would be more like America and thus more like America = more good/responsible?

I already addressed all of these issues in my previous post: USA and USSR NEVER went to war. Either before or after they got nukes. Therefore you have no proof it was the nukes that kept peace for the last 60 years. You also completely ignored my points that crises like installment of missiles on Cuba would never exist.
However I did provide examples to the contrary: China attacking US forces in North Korea and Argentina attacking the Falklands.

Those were non-nuclear powers. China wasn't a nuclear one (yet, at that time), and neither was Argentina. Obviously mutually assured destruction doesn't work when the other power lacks nukes.

However, nuclear-armed nations have never - as far as I know - gone to war with each other.

The fact that a form of government is irrational is in no way relevant to whether they should be allowed to have the capability to arbitrarily wipe cities off the map at the push of a button? I have to say I disagree with you there. How many countries has Argentinian military junta invaded before their attack on the Falklands? If they had nuclear weapons would that have made them more or less bold? They risked a possible nuclear retaliation from UK basically to increase their approval ratings. I would say that was irrational. Do you think that ayatollahs are more rational and trustworthy than the military junta before Falklands?

As Siege said:

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.

[loomer]

A few groundbursts over crop fields and they're unusable for a century. Not so with conventional shelling.

Sorry to nitpick again, but what the fuck are you smoking? Unusable for a decade, maybe. Maybe even two. But a groundburst doesn't magically make radiation last longer than it would anyway - all it does is create additional fallout and more impact side radioactivity that'll dissipate relatively quickly. Sure, it'll have higher than average background levels for a few thousand years but that doesn't automatically equal unusable.

Further, why the fuck would anyone waste a nuclear device on a groundburst on cropfields? You don't want to use nukes in that capacity, you want to use locusts. A nuke is far better used on an actual military, industrial, or population target than a fucking FARM. If you're going to cry about the nuclear wolf, at least be reasonable.

[Kane Starkiller]

A nuclear test is a pretty solid proof of a nuclear arsenal in the making.

By then it's already too late as the country already possesses an unknown number of devices one of which was tested.

For which bullshit? Nuclear weapons have existed for 60 years. There's no way of getting rid of them. Nuclear nations will expand, that's the trend.

The bullshit of letting nuclear weapons proliferate to the point the human civilization is threatened. There is nothing impossible about stopping and decreasing the number of nuclear weapons if the world stays firm about it. Making clear that development of nuclear weapons will result in military action and treaties like START are a step in that direction.
Didn't you notice that Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus all gave up nuclear weapons?

So what? Israel occupies the territory of another state with it's own territory. One could say also, "what does pushing the USSR out of the Baltic nations mean for the existence of the USSR"? Don't you hold the view that de-jure incorporated territories of a nation may not, in fact, be it's territories by any sort of right? And if so, where's the difference, anyhow? That the entirety of Israel is an occupied territory? That's a difference, sure, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel occupied land through political force-shoving since it's very inception.

This doesn't change Iran's irrationality. They know full well that Israel can never accept its own disappearance no matter who is in the right. And yet they push it. That is not rational because it's putting Iran's own population at a very great risks since Israel likely has nuclear weapon.
Are you saying that someone sponsored terrorists in Baltic states during their drive for independence? If that is true then they're nuts. As far as I know the West merely stated that if USSR tries to resolve Baltic issue by force the relations (and loans) with the West will decrease.

Iran's capabilities are just about as limited. It doesn't have a direct border with Israel. Iraq, now, is likely to fall into Iran's sphere of influence, Islamic or not, regardless of whether Iran has nukes or not. That doesn't mean Iran can invade Iraq, even with nukes.

But Iran has greater potential to stir trouble since it is much bigger. Iran, with 5 nukes, can cause as much damage to Israel as it can cause it with 80 nukes. And I don't see how Iran absorbing or turning Iraq into an Islamic republic can be in anyone's interest whether it likes US or not. Also at the end of the day US can pack up it shit and move back across the Atlantic, Russia will always have Iran on its southern border. Next to North Caucasus. A nuclear armed Islamic regional hegemon with a known history of sponsoring terrorism and a stated goal of spreading Islam and which was invaded and occupied by USSR 70 years ago might not be in Russia's best interest regardless of the fact that it's currently a Russian ally.

It's a high probability that there won't be, because nuclear weapons are that powerful.

As I said: that nuclear weapons are dangerous is a known fact, that there is a high probability that there won't be a war is an assumption and a qualitative one at that.

The USA is a terrorist-sponsoring democracy. I don't see a functional difference, unless we were to assume that Iran's theocratic doctrine calls for nuclear apocalypse or something.

They have demonstrated they are willing to risk more for fewer gains. Therefore, for a given amount of power, they are more dangerous than US. They are also a theocracy and such oppressive governments, like Argentinian, are known to make reckless invasions.

How so? It engaged in terrorism all over the world AND wars of agression. Iran engaged in terrorism in it's region AND launched no wars of agression.

It engaged in terrorism spread over 50 years of cold war and the entire world. Thus the "density" of its terrorist activities is lesser than that of Iran. Should Iran's power increase then it would become far more dangerous.

It's not. Hitler's statements called for what he did. Have the leaders of Iran professed their will to omnicide Israel? I'm not up-to-date on that, but if they did, that's a reason for concern indeed.

But at one point Hitler's speeches could've also been dismissed as "just propaganda". Iran's leader like Ahmaninejad called for destruction of Israel and installing Islamic republic in Iraq. Which is threatening enough.

Yeah, it doesn't. However, even without positive involvement, there's tons and tons of things they did which can't be "good" at all.

I agree. Keeping the nukes out of ayatollahs hands would not be one of those bad things however.

Me neither, but if they were reckless enough to make provocations WITH nuclear weapons, it's reasonable to assume the fear threshold of the leadership would be lower without nukes. Ergo, increased chance of conventional war(s).

Those missions were about gathering intelligence on enemy activity not provocation. Provocation was a consequence if they were caught but countries were willing to risk it because they considered the information about enemy nuclear arsenal of vital importance. Without nukes the importance of knowing exactly what the enemy is doing and exactly where its bombers are decreases.

No, you should evaluate the options. The option is not "Iran without WMDs" - once you bomb Iran and they become hellishly upset, they'll likely start looking for other WMD possibilities because they would now be sure you won't stop if you need to attack them. So you should understand that a denial of nuclear weapons now can mean a nuclear or biologically armed Iran in the future.

And a more, far more upset one, at that.

But what is stopping them from developing biological weapons right now? Obviously a major issue is can Iran be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons reliably. If US (or anyone else) is simply not capable of destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure with a certain level of reliability than the entire discussion is moot.

Sorry to nitpick again, but what the fuck are you smoking? Unusable for a decade, maybe. Maybe even two. But a groundburst doesn't magically make radiation last longer than it would anyway - all it does is create additional fallout and more impact side radioactivity that'll dissipate relatively quickly. Sure, it'll have higher than average background levels for a few thousand years but that doesn't automatically equal unusable.

Further, why the fuck would anyone waste a nuclear device on a groundburst on cropfields? You don't want to use nukes in that capacity, you want to use locusts. A nuke is far better used on an actual military, industrial, or population target than a fucking FARM. If you're going to cry about the nuclear wolf, at least be reasonable.

And one or two decades of no crops even after is over (and infrastructure is in ruins) would not be catastrophic? It still makes nuclear war far more devastating than any conventional war. Striking at a nuclear silo and hardened military targets requires groundbursts and will contaminate any arable lands around them. Not to mention that we are again in the optimist territory: "Sure it can cause the end of the world but hey no one is crazy enough to do it. Right? Right?"
I mean if we are going to worry about peak oil and oceans rising 50cm by 2100 or whatever then certainly worrying about the future in which 100,000 multimegaton devices are a few keystrokes away from landing on cities all over the world is not so paranoid is it?

[K. A. Pital]

Besides, we've already seen this happen in Iraq. Whoops, no WMDs!

Yeah, but you see, if ONLY the US hadn't invaded Iraq and totally ruined their shit, making it a failed state with a million violent deaths, collapsed infrastructure and Mad Max style justice for gas on the roads... then Iraq would have totally developed new WMDs. Yeah.

Being MORE agressive towards a nation is how you dissuade it from developing a WMD. Not by being less agressive.

Further, why the fuck would anyone waste a nuclear device on a groundburst on cropfields?

Yeah. And what "cropfields" in the desert that is Middle East?

[Kane Starkiller]

Yeah, but you see, if ONLY the US hadn't invaded Iraq and totally ruined their shit, making it a failed state with a million violent deaths, collapsed infrastructure and Mad Max style justice for gas on the roads... then Iraq would have totally developed new WMDs. Yeah.

Being MORE agressive towards a nation is how you dissuade it from developing a WMD. Not by being less agressive.

Iraq did have WMDs and used them against its own citizens and Iran. And all that at the time US was supporting Iraq. Which means that "US being aggressive" cannot be used to explain either the development or usage of WMDs.

Yeah. And what "cropfields" in the desert that is Middle East?

Tell me do you think that omnipresence of deserts makes what little cropland they have remaining non-irradiated more or less critical for their survival?

[K. A. Pital]

By then it's already too late as the country already possesses an unknown number of devices one of which was tested.
... The bullshit of letting nuclear weapons proliferate to the point the human civilization is threatened. There is nothing impossible about stopping and decreasing the number of nuclear weapons if the world stays firm about it. Making clear that development of nuclear weapons will result in military action and treaties like START are a step in that direction.

That's not a solution. Unilateral military action will only be seen as imperialism and force small nations to make nukes. Hey, isn't it what happened with Iraq? Iraq got fucked over (for fake WMDs) and then suddenly DPRK and Iran are speeding up nuclear programs. See a correlation? The DPRK lay low from 1991 to 2003. And now it's making nukes. Just a coincidence?

Didn't you notice that Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus all gave up nuclear weapons?

The question is, would they do so were they not part of the USSR? Would they do so if the dissolution was happening now? Part of me somehow thinks it's up for grabs.

As far as I know the West merely stated that if USSR tries to resolve Baltic issue by force the relations (and loans) with the West will decrease

I'm sure I've read that money was sent through black ops in the 1950s, I'm not sure where though. In the 1970 of course the CIA engaged in some instances of terrorism on Soviet soil, but it wasnt' connected to nationalist-separtist terrorists. However, it's a fact that Chechen separatists got international financing. Likewise through black channels.

Also at the end of the day US can pack up it shit and move back across the Atlantic, Russia will always have Iran on its southern border. Next to North Caucasus. A nuclear armed Islamic regional hegemon with a known history of sponsoring terrorism and a stated goal of spreading Islam and which was invaded and occupied by USSR 70 years ago might not be in Russia's best interest regardless of the fact that it's currently a Russian ally.

I never said nuclear Iran is in Russia's interests. Russia is but another imperialist power anyway; why care? Nuclear Iran is in Iran's interest, however.

It engaged in terrorism spread over 50 years of cold war and the entire world. Thus the "density" of its terrorist activities is lesser than that of Iran.

In given regions, US sponsored terrorism was at times very intense. Iran, naturally, is only "intenstely" sponsoring terrorists in the latest history, and thus to you it seems different. But it really isn't.

Iran's leader like Ahmaninejad called for destruction of Israel

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"? Oh god. By that logic the USA wanted to omnicide the USSR and PRC!
"If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums."

He said that the Zionist regime must be destroyed. That's a little different from saying Israel must be destroyed. Although pretty clear that Palestinians wouldn't put up with Israel existing.

But what is stopping them from developing biological weapons right now?

Biological weapons are inherently more dangerous, and to their developer as well. A leak can cause a pandemia and you die. A nuclear weapon can't do that.

[Darth Wong]

What kind of Israel would Palestinians accept? Would they all accept nothing less than the ejection of all Jews from the region, or would most of them be willing to accept something less? It seems hard to believe that they would accept nothing less, when the idea of ejecting all the Jews from the region is so far-fetched as to be pure fantasy-wank material for them. I know we have quotes from individuals saying things like "push Israel to the sea", and of course, we know how much the Palestinians hate them, but that doesn't really tell us much about what they would realistically accept as a people.

[Siege]

Obviously if there is no solid proof they are trying to build nuclear weapons they shouldn't be attacked. But what do you count as solid proof? A mushroom cloud?

That would certainly be nice, although I believe underground testing is all the rage these days. You do realize that nuclear powers tend to want to test whether their weapons actually work, and that a deterrent doesn't work as long as the rest of the world doesn't know you actually have the big bombs?

Let's at least not start worrying about Iran suddenly sporting nuclear weapons until after their reactors start processing 90% enriched U-235. And I believe the IAEA should be able to clue us in once we've reached that point.

I disagree. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is an important goal in and of itself. Obviously there is concern about how the intervention will affect the long term relationship with Iran. The question is is maintaining good long term relations with Iran worth allowing Iran the capability to destroy any European city by entering a 10 digit number and pressing enter.

And enraging and further radicalising the Iranian leadership would further this goal somehow? Do you perhaps think that air strikes against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure (and by extension the Iranian IADS) will somehow serve to make the world safer for European cities?

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather not have anyone point big missiles with atomic warheads at my city... But I don't see why deterrence wouldn't work on Iran. Certainly their leadership has over the last few decades proved to be quite rational when it comes to international affairs. And to be honest I think in the long run allowing Iran a handful of nukes and MRBMs is better for the region than radicalising a nation with the eight largest army in the world, a population of 70 million, and plenty capability of engineering God knows what biological and chemical terrors.

Politically Iran right now is inching gradually toward liberal political reforms. If this remains so, then in ten years or so Iran could be like India: we might not like the fact that they have nukes at their disposal, but their status of nuclear power isn't imminently threatening to the geopolitical status quo either. If on the other hand a strike is conducted now, we'll undo all slow progress toward reform and in ten years we'll still be in the same situation as we are right now, with an Iranian leadership that uses angry rhetoric to maintain its grip on power... Because we'll have given them all the tools they need to do so.

I know which of those two outcomes I prefer.

Except you repeatedly said to the guy to stop reaching into his pocket and he doesn't listen.

I'll happily remind you that you started off this analogy with the statement that "it's like seeing a guy reach for a gun". Except now, apparently, you're not doing any such thing. Instead you're trying to stop said guy from reaching into his pocket, presumably by force, before even making sure he's got a gun. So in order to protect yourself from the at this stage still entirely hypothetical possibility of getting shot, you're now stopping people from doing such utterly mundane things as reaching into their own pockets.

Amusingly (or perhaps not) I am again reminded of the case of Amadou Bailo Diallo. I obliquely referred to this case in my previous reply as well. Your retort that "well I told him to stop reaching into his pocket" mirrors more or less the defence of the NYPD officers who pumped 41 shots into the general direction of Mr. Diallo (who had been unarmed and reaching for the wallet). Without getting too deep into the details of the case, I think we'll both agree that this is not the way the matter ideally would have been resolved. My conclusion is that it's bad practice to pre-emptively shoot people just because they happen to reach into their bloody pocket. Likewise you don't bomb nations because they might do something you don't like at some point in the future.

Because we're not using swords anymore. Nuclear weapons can wipe out cities in seconds and people can't afford to wait for an attack to come if they believe there is a heightened chance a country might use its nuclear weapons.

And why would we be waiting for an attack to come, exactly? Are you perchance in possession of secret information indicating a grand Iranian masterplan to nuke the shit out of Europe at the first possible instance? Because unless I've missed such a plan leaking, I don't particularly see why we should assume the Iranians will be daft enough to actually try something so monumentally stupid. Like I said earlier, the Islamic Republic of Iran so far has demonstrated a remarkable amount of sense in their foreign policies. I am not going to take it as an article of faith that this will somehow change the moment they come into possession of weapons they don't even appear to be developing yet.

You're attempting to justify a pre-emptive military strike against a sovereign nation on nothing but the very flimsiest of excuses. Pre-emptive attacks should be reserved exclusively for extremely grave circumstances, i.e. those cases where it is absolutely, undeniably clear that an enemy attack is imminent. This is by no means the case here, and militarily attacking a sovereign state on the sole basis of assumptions about their future motives sets a precedent I am very much uncomfortable with. In fact I'm quite disconcerted by how many people seem eager to bomb nations for reasons that can pretty much be summed up as "I don't trust 'em". Recent world history demonstrates amply the kind of crap that is spawned by that sort of attitude. Apparently that lesson is wasted on some.

EDIT: Jesus Harald Christ riding a Harley out of Kopenhagen, this thread moves faster than greased lightning...