Iran allows protestors to storm UK Embassy

[Alkaloid]

So I guess you need to explain exactly why Russia, China and, well - there isn't really anybody else with the delivery systems to strike the US - would be willing to risk MAD over Iranian nuclear facilities being taken out by nuclear bunker busters.

The mad thing was just in response to your assertation that the US is inviolate when it comes to nuclear attack, which is bullshit.

As for why, they won't, they don't have to. Nukes are taboo. Ever since WW2 ended, there's been sort of an unspoken agreement that we don't use nukes. Yeah, they exist, and nations in conflict may have them on both sides, but when that happens it's all diplomacy and brush fire wars in out of the way places so we can pretend that we aren't really at war. It's not that different from how gas just wasn't used as a weapon in Europe in WW2. Everyone was afraid of it, gas masks were handed out like candy, but everyone had seen it, seen the results and knew just how fucking awful it was and wasn't willing to go there. We have seen nukes, we get radiation, and everyone does their best to make sure it just doesn't happen.
If the US nukes somewhere, anywhere, without a direct nuclear attack on US soil first, they have broken that unwritten rule, and every other country on the planet realises that they can't predict or anticipate how the US might act or react because they are using a completely different playbook to everyone else.
Countries like Canada and Australia, strong allies to the US, resource rich, little military capacity and relatively isolated from meaningful assistance from anyone have to consider that the US may now stop 'asking a friend' and start 'telling a servant' or may just roll in and take what they need if they feel they have to, small island nations or middle eastern countries selling oil to the wrong people have to consider a marine division might just rock up and take over one day because they have the rights to some pissant little oilfield that no one paid much attention to before.
Europe will be looked to to try and check this crap, and realise they have no real capacity to do so, and as a result, everyone will start gravitating to the one nation that can get withing throwing distance of the capacity to do so sometime in the foreseeable future (excluding maybe India.) Sure, as it stands now none of this is at all likely to happen (except the invading little countries for oil bit) but once one big rule is broken you have to assume that the whole damn rulebook has been thrown out and react accordingly. Opening this particular Pandora's Box makes you the bad guy.

Edit: Clarity

[Julhelm]

The mad thing was just in response to your assertation that the US is inviolate when it comes to nuclear attack, which is bullshit.

As for why, they won't, they don't have to. Nukes are taboo. Ever since WW2 ended, there's been sort of an unspoken agreement that we don't use nukes. Yeah, they exist, and nations in conflict may have them on both sides, but when that happens it's all diplomacy and brush fire wars in out of the way places so we can pretend that we aren't really at war. It's not that different from how gas just wasn't used as a weapon in Europe in WW2. Everyone was afraid of it, gas masks were handed out like candy, but everyone had seen it, seen the results and knew just how fucking awful it was and wasn't willing to go there. We have seen nukes, we get radiation, and everyone does their best to make sure it just doesn't happen.
If the US nukes somewhere, anywhere, without a direct nuclear attack on US soil first, they have broken that unwritten rule, and every other country on the planet realises that they can't predict or anticipate how the US might act or react because they are using a completely different playbook to everyone else.
Countries like Canada and Australia, strong allies to the US, resource rich, little military capacity and relatively isolated from meaningful assistance from anyone have to consider that the US may now stop 'asking a friend' and start 'telling a servant' or may just roll in and take what they need if they feel they have to, small island nations or middle eastern countries selling oil to the wrong people have to consider a marine division might just rock up and take over one day because they have the rights to some pissant little oilfield that no one paid much attention to before.
Europe will be looked to to try and check this crap, and realise they have no real capacity to do so, and as a result, everyone will start gravitating to the one nation that can get withing throwing distance of the capacity to do so sometime in the foreseeable future (excluding maybe India.) Sure, as it stands now none of this is at all likely to happen (except the invading little countries for oil bit) but once one big rule is broken you have to assume that the whole damn rulebook has been thrown out and react accordingly. Opening this particular Pandora's Box makes you the bad guy.

Edit: Clarity

There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons. There is however, deterrence, That's what strategic nuclear weapons are for. Tactical nuclear weapons are intended for, lo and behold, tactical use. Now deterrence is only a viable option if you have the means with which to deter. Iran doesn't, and it is in our interest to make sure they don't. And NATO will stay allies of the US for as long as they are reliant on the US. Or do you really think Europe and Canada will ally with China or Russia instead because the US used nuclear bunker busters to take out Iranian nuclear facilities? There will be some bitching about it and then it's back to business as usual. You know short of preemptively nuking an Iranian city, there isn't really anything that would turn the US into some kind of international pariah.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think it would be like flipping an "off" switch, where all nations would suddenly go "okay, time to shift our strategic posture away from the US."

But it would certainly have an effect, just as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had an effect on the strategic relationship between the US and other nations. The more the US flexes its muscles to achieve its own ends, and the more it rejects the idea of restraints on what it is allowed to do, the less people will trust it or want to rely on it for security guarantees.

There's a difference between the relationship between a strong ally and a weak ally, and a strong imperial state and a weak state whose independence happens to be in the empire's interests. I would be very reluctant to go farther to downgrade the US's relationships with other countries from the first of those to the second.

[Alkaloid]

There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons. There is however, deterrence, That's what strategic nuclear weapons are for. Tactical nuclear weapons are intended for, lo and behold, tactical use.

Then why, pray tell, do you think that there have been no 'tactical' uses of nuclear weapons since WW2?

And NATO will stay allies of the US for as long as they are reliant on the US

How is NATO reliant on the US? They might be if the USSR still existed, but they no longer need the US. NATO is certainly convenient for the countries involved as it gives them potential access to the US military and a way to pressure the US to take military action that they want more than the US does, but if the US turns into something more trouble than its worth then they are entirely capable of cutting loose from NATO, the only ill effects are likely to be in their relationships with the US anyway, and if they are at that stage thats no likely to matter much anymore.

Or do you really think Europe and Canada will ally with China or Russia instead because the US used nuclear bunker busters to take out Iranian nuclear facilities?

Immediately? No. But it will push them towards allying with them, pretty much like Jester laid out. China is playing a long game and building influence, is entirely capable of courting other nations, and will be even more capable of doing so if the US starts nuking people because it's the second biggest kid in the playground.

You know short of preemptively nuking an Iranian city, there isn't really anything that would turn the US into some kind of international pariah.

You realise that that is almost exactly what you are suggesting is reasonable? Pre emptively nuking Iran.

[TimothyC]

How is NATO reliant on the US?

Tell me again how the Libyan IADS got taken apart?

Until the CVFs get built, the French build a second carrier, and we start seeing significant procurement of cruise missiles NATO is reliant on the US for any power projection in something more strenuous than peacekeeping.

This is a fundamental issue in American foreign policy. On one hand it would be nice for Europe to pull their own weight, but I kind of like the idea that they are so reliant on the US to do much of anything.

[Alkaloid]

Tell me again how the Libyan IADS got taken apart?

Textbook example. If the US hadn't got involved, the UK and France could still have taken apart the Libyan Air Force and air defence system. It would have taken longer and probably cost more planes and pilots lives, and cost them more money, but they could have based planes out of Italy, as well as their admittedly limited carrier forces, or if they were feeling adventurous somewhere in rebel controlled Libya, with the accompanying support teams and defensive armies, and it would have been done. They didn't have to do that, because NATO and the access it gives its members to the possibility of US forces advancing their agenda is convenient to its members, but it's not necessary, and if the US becomes more trouble than its worth they can get by just fine without it. They only ever needed the US when there was the possibility of the Red Army rolling over the border.

[Stark]

This is a fundamental issue in American foreign policy. On one hand it would be nice for Europe to pull their own weight, but I kind of like the idea that they are so reliant on the US to do much of anything.

This is the funniest thing ever. America must be strong - ARMY STRONG - but gotta comlpain about limp-wristed liberals anyway! In a thread about a country that isn't allowed to develop its military!

[Block]

Tell me again how the Libyan IADS got taken apart?

Textbook example. If the US hadn't got involved, the UK and France could still have taken apart the Libyan Air Force and air defence system. It would have taken longer and probably cost more planes and pilots lives, and cost them more money, but they could have based planes out of Italy, as well as their admittedly limited carrier forces, or if they were feeling adventurous somewhere in rebel controlled Libya, with the accompanying support teams and defensive armies, and it would have been done. They didn't have to do that, because NATO and the access it gives its members to the possibility of US forces advancing their agenda is convenient to its members, but it's not necessary, and if the US becomes more trouble than its worth they can get by just fine without it. They only ever needed the US when there was the possibility of the Red Army rolling over the border.

You're wrong. Pretty much everything you said is wrong. The fighting in Libya would've been over before NATO minus the US cleared out the ADS, because they wouldn't have been able to conduct the strikes fast enough to even get around to ground support missions. Remind me again how well NATO and UN forces would've done without US forces? And how exactly it is that a number of European countries get away with spending so little of their GDP on defense despite potentially hostile neighbors?

[Block]

I will repeat what Rachel Maddow pointed out on her Monday evening show: Had this been an Actual Protest by Real Students, there would have been NO COVERAGE by Iranian news media AT ALL.

In short: The Protesters were paid instigators.

Just like in '79.

[Stark]

You're right, France is under contstant threat from... Spain, I guess? That's why it builds carriers, right? Fear!

The laugh is that American chestbeating aside, if other countries had such outrageous military power (and America didn't knee-jerk a fear reaction over it, like they always do) it'd actually be of great benefit to American power projection and domestic politics by lowering the cost of their retarded adventurism.

[Alkaloid]

You're wrong. Pretty much everything you said is wrong. The fighting in Libya would've been over before NATO minus the US cleared out the ADS, because they wouldn't have been able to conduct the strikes fast enough to even get around to ground support missions

The wonderful thing about Libya is it has a coast, and coastal towns, and that means things on ships can still provide support. So yes, like I said, harder, longer, much more expensive in terms of material and lives (for everyone but the US) but it could still be done. It would have been a much more comprehensive military campaign, because frankly no Europe can't come up with the complete and utter crushing dominance of the US Navy carriers, but they don't need to, they just need to be good enough to get the job done. Like I keep saying, it is not necessary, that doesn't mean it is not convenient.

And how exactly it is that a number of European countries get away with spending so little of their GDP on defense despite potentially hostile neighbors?

That's adorable. Do you actually think there secretly is a Muslim Caliphate in the Middle East that's just itching to come swarming over the Mediterranean and gobble up Europe? Or is the Soviet Union reforming and I haven't heard?

[Stark]

Just like in '79.

I think you mean 'just like in '53'?

[Block]

Just like in '79.

I think you mean 'just like in '53'?

I was unaware the CIA used students to fake protests against the US in order to put a religious dictator in power. I thought they just paid off military officers not to fight back.

[Stark]

At least you're aware the CIA used fake demonstrations. Not as blinkered as you appear!

The irony of groups using dirty tricks they learned from the US and being tut-tutted about it is fantastic. Not quite as funny as the idea that America wants stronger vassal militaries, but cloe.

[Block]

That's adorable. Do you actually think there secretly is a Muslim Caliphate in the Middle East that's just itching to come swarming over the Mediterranean and gobble up Europe? Or is the Soviet Union reforming and I haven't heard?

No you smug jackass, but do you think the dispute between Greece and Turkey would be as civil as it is without the spectre of UN(meaning NATO) action? Do you think the Balkans would be as stable as they are? I seem to remember a war that would end all wars and no one could possibly conceive of war ever coming to the European continent again. How did that work out for France?

As for Libya having a coast, irrelevent. Without US logistical support, Qaddafi's forces roll over the rebels while the UK and France are still trying to take apart the ADS.

[Bakustra]

That's adorable. Do you actually think there secretly is a Muslim Caliphate in the Middle East that's just itching to come swarming over the Mediterranean and gobble up Europe? Or is the Soviet Union reforming and I haven't heard?

No you smug jackass, but do you think the dispute between Greece and Turkey would be as civil as it is without the spectre of UN(meaning NATO) action? Do you think the Balkans would be as stable as they are? I seem to remember a war that would end all wars and no one could possibly conceive of war ever coming to the European continent again. How did that work out for France?

As for Libya having a coast, irrelevent. Without US logistical support, Qaddafi's forces roll over the rebels while the UK and France are still trying to take apart the ADS.

Yeah, the current situation is exactly like Europe post-Versailles in terms of potential boiling points for conflicts, this is a masterful analogy, not at all a cheap shot that falls apart when you actually think about it or anything!

[Block]

At least you're aware the CIA used fake demonstrations. Not as blinkered as you appear!

The irony of groups using dirty tricks they learned from the US and being tut-tutted about it is fantastic. Not quite as funny as the idea that America wants stronger vassal militaries, but cloe.

My objection to any of it is the way in which the religious nutjobs treat their people. The Shah was brutal, and had I been around back then I'm sure I'dve objected to that too, but he was positively saintly compared to the Mullahs that replaced him. Not because he was "our guy" or anything like that, simply because the scale of atrocities reported under the current government dwarfs what was perpetrated by the Shah's secret police.

[Block]

That's adorable. Do you actually think there secretly is a Muslim Caliphate in the Middle East that's just itching to come swarming over the Mediterranean and gobble up Europe? Or is the Soviet Union reforming and I haven't heard?

No you smug jackass, but do you think the dispute between Greece and Turkey would be as civil as it is without the spectre of UN(meaning NATO) action? Do you think the Balkans would be as stable as they are? I seem to remember a war that would end all wars and no one could possibly conceive of war ever coming to the European continent again. How did that work out for France?

As for Libya having a coast, irrelevent. Without US logistical support, Qaddafi's forces roll over the rebels while the UK and France are still trying to take apart the ADS.

Yeah, the current situation is exactly like Europe post-Versailles in terms of potential boiling points for conflicts, this is a masterful analogy, not at all a cheap shot that falls apart when you actually think about it or anything!

Look at the current Eurozone issues, tell me there aren't potential boiling points. Or do you think the people of these countries that are struggling are going to just submit to the demands of the ECB like sheep?

[Bakustra]

I'm glad that you recognized that it was a dumb analogy and are desperately scratching for relevancy with hilarious predictions of Spain and Italy declaring war on France and Germany or vice versa. Comparing the current situation to the period immediately post World War 1 or to the interbellum years in general is ridiculous for many reasons, but this shit is even better!

[Block]

I'm glad that you recognized that it was a dumb analogy and are desperately scratching for relevancy with hilarious predictions of Spain and Italy declaring war on France and Germany or vice versa. Comparing the current situation to the period immediately post World War 1 or to the interbellum years in general is ridiculous for many reasons, but this shit is even better!

Really? Please, explain it to me oh wisest of posters. You who regularly gets told to shut the fuck up by, well everyone. Spain and Italy declaring war on France and Germany is a strawman btw, Europe is more than 4 countries, and I already explained that earlier, but that'd require reading the whole thread before you jump in, something you suck at.

[Bakustra]

I'm glad that you recognized that it was a dumb analogy and are desperately scratching for relevancy with hilarious predictions of Spain and Italy declaring war on France and Germany or vice versa. Comparing the current situation to the period immediately post World War 1 or to the interbellum years in general is ridiculous for many reasons, but this shit is even better!

Really? Please, explain it to me oh wisest of posters. You who regularly gets told to shut the fuck up by, well everyone. Spain and Italy declaring war on France and Germany is a strawman btw, Europe is more than 4 countries, and I already explained that earlier, but that'd require reading the whole thread before you jump in, something you suck at.

Okay, let me explain. You are gassing about how the situation is comparable to post-Versailles Europe because of the proposed austerity measures in the Eurozone. These are effecting five countries especially harshly. I picked the two largest of them (Italy and Spain) to go against the two largest and most powerful countries in the Eurozone (France and Germany) to highlight how ridiculous you're being. But tell me a)how Europe today is so much like Europe in the 1920s and 1930s that snide comments reducible to "The war to end all wars! Hitler!!!!" are useful analogies and b) what exactly you meant by "Or do you think the people of these countries that are struggling are going to just submit to the demands of the ECB like sheep?" in the context of potential wars if not some sort of war between countries facing austerity measures and the leaders of the Eurozone.

Remember, all this is so that you can beat your chest over American presence in Europe and brag about how those Euro-babies wouldn't be able to do anything without Uncle Sam. Remember that as you post, and gain the self-awareness to hang your head in shame.

[Alkaloid]

but do you think the dispute between Greece and Turkey would be as civil as it is without the spectre of UN(meaning NATO) action?

Ah. So you are thinking that if the US wasn't going to get involved, then all the countries in Europe and surrounding areas would spend more money on defence because that would make them less likely to invade each other? There has been a line of thinking like this before, and it didn't end well.

Do you think the Balkans would be as stable as they are?

What, precisely, can the US do in the Balkans that couldn't be done by a European country if the US declined to be in any way involved?

As for Libya having a coast, irrelevent. Without US logistical support, Qaddafi's forces roll over the rebels while the UK and France are still trying to take apart the ADS.

OK. There were three areas where the government forces were kicking the rebels teeth in. Airstrikes, armour and artillery.
Airstrikes are really effective when you have air supremacy, and of much less use when airspace is at all contested, especially given that Libya was the sort of country that only gave pilots enough fuel to complete their mission and fly home, so any attention at all from an enemy aircraft or air defence system essentially means scrub the mission because you wasted fuel evading them or crash in the desert if you aren't shot down. The thing about coasts is that they imply ocean, and ocean is nice for militaries because you can put ships on it, and ships are nice because you can park all sorts of shit on them that normally has to be on land. Like runways, and artillery, and cruise missiles. And that means that if you have a decent idea where an enemy force is sitting, say because say you have a nice friendly special forces team looking at them and telling you, cruise missiles can then blow them up. Like has been military practice since they invented the cannon, more or less.

They don't have to take apart the ADS before they can do anything to help the rebels. Like I have repeatedly said, it will take longer. It will be more expensive. It will be a more comprehensive campaign, and if you can ask the US to send a carrier group to help it will be a metric fuckton quicker and easier, but it can be done.

[Julhelm]

Then why, pray tell, do you think that there have been no 'tactical' uses of nuclear weapons since WW2?

Because while NATO and WP were in an armed standoff over the Fulda gap noone wanted to needlessly escalate into total war, lol? Not out of taboo but out of not being suicidal. Protip: No such standoff situation no longer exists since 20 years ago. Russia is not the Soviet Union with unlimited arms, double-lol.

How is NATO reliant on the US? They might be if the USSR still existed, but they no longer need the US. NATO is certainly convenient for the countries involved as it gives them potential access to the US military and a way to pressure the US to take military action that they want more than the US does, but if the US turns into something more trouble than its worth then they are entirely capable of cutting loose from NATO, the only ill effects are likely to be in their relationships with the US anyway, and if they are at that stage thats no likely to matter much anymore.

How many times has the euro nations actually gotten anything done without relying on the US bearing the brunt of the workload? They couldn't even take on Libya without needing to call the US first, lol?

Immediately? No. But it will push them towards allying with them, pretty much like Jester laid out. China is playing a long game and building influence, is entirely capable of courting other nations, and will be even more capable of doing so if the US starts nuking people because it's the second biggest kid in the playground.

So we'd all move from allying with democracy towards allying with a dictatorship. Protip: The US is still the biggest kid in the playground and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future regardless of what China-fanbois wank about.

You realise that that is almost exactly what you are suggesting is reasonable? Pre emptively nuking Iran.

preemptively nuking an Iranian city

One more time, bolded for your convenience:

preemptively nuking an Iranian city

Dropping a small nuclear bunker buster at a remote location is the same as obliterating an entire city with hundreds of thousands of casualites? lol?

[K. A. Pital]

How many times has the euro nations actually gotten anything done without relying on the US bearing the brunt of the workload? They couldn't even take on Libya without needing to call the US first, lol?

NATO can't accomplish interventions and agressive conquests, big deal. Is the number of weapons in Europe inadequate to defend it in case of agression?

Protip: The US is still the biggest kid in the playground and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future

Since China's bulk GDP will soon equal the US one, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be even remotely true. There's nothing "fanboyish" about it. Japan didn't reach the US GDP volume simply due to smaller population.

[Julhelm]

NATO can't accomplish interventions and agressive conquests, big deal.

It is a big deal when the argument was "lol NATO countries don't need the US lol".

Is the number of weapons in Europe inadequate to defend it in case of agression?

Even in the 1960's the average NATO unit had only enough conventional weapons for around 3 or 4 weeks of fighting, and we sure haven't ramped up production since then, so I'd say yes.

Since China's bulk GDP will soon equal the US one, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be even remotely true. There's nothing "fanboyish" about it. Japan didn't reach the US GDP volume simply due to smaller population.

China doesn't have anywhere near the power-projection capabilities of the US. Also there is no way in hell Europe would ally with communist China over the US unless the US somehow ceases to be a democracy, and since that was the context of his argument that means the US is still biggest and the best by default from not being a totaliarian shithole like China or Russia.