Would you support war against Iran (if diplomacy does not work)

[Devastatin Dave]

Would any of you support war against Iran if diplomacy fails, which seems to be occuring now?

[Don Corleone]

Uhm, Dave, this is thread # 4 on the topic. #1 got closed. #2 & #3 got merged.

[Devastatin Dave]

the 4 options are posted so that those that feel that you have to be hit first before you hit back have a choice. I guess I should have worded it better, I would still like to see the votes and more importantly, the reasoning behind everyone's opinion. I would also like a good and solid debate without using Iraq as an arguement piece unless one's arguement has significance to the Iranian issue.

[Devastatin Dave]

Uhm, Dave, this is thread # 4 on the topic. #1 got closed. #2 & #3 got merged.

But has there been a poll yet Don?

[Don Corleone]

And in that, you have a point. Although you forgot Poll rule number 1, also known as the Ichi rule. Where is the 'Gah' option.

I have to vote none of the above. I would say no, unless they start showing agression, but you haven't defined what aggression is. I would consider sponsoring terrorists with a dirty bomb or a small nuclear device an inherently aggressive act that if proven, would justify a war. Strictly speaking, aggression would be the state itself engaging in aggressive acts, but given their track record, I don't think it's a far-fectched scenario.

[Watchman]

Heck no. I tend to have serious trouble accepting military action even against culprits of flat out genocides and ethnic cleansings; good luck persuading me how Iran (which engages in neither) would make a "legit" target. And no, merely having nukes doesn't count - Pakistan, India and (almost certainly) Israel have them too. You don't arrest gun owners just because they *might* rob a bank with their toys either, now do you ?

[Viking]

Heck no. I tend to have serious trouble accepting military action even against culprits of flat out genocides and ethnic cleansings; good luck persuading me how Iran (which engages in neither) would make a "legit" target. And no, merely having nukes doesn't count - Pakistan, India and (almost certainly) Israel have them too. You don't arrest gun owners just because they *might* rob a bank with their toys either, now do you ?

They have not said that Israel(Israel haven`t mentioned any country worthy of such a fate, AFAIK) deserves to be wiped of the map and that holocaust is myth, however. I`m thinking that their [Irans] national security is worse(i.e. easier for terrorists to get hold of something radioactive).

[Watchman]

Hot air doesn't cost too much, you know. Having several of your major cities obliterated in a retaliatory strike does.

And as far as poor security goes, you can't beat Russia. Even their, whatwasit, "Strategic Rocket Corps" or whatever often has the wages of its personnel in arrears, and if how they look after the "boomers" and nuke-powered warships in Murmansk is anything to judge by...

For that matter, pesky peacenik activists have proven quite capable of pretty much climbing over a fence, traipsing over half a base and curiously looking around the insides of high-security military installations in the West too; if I recall correctly one bunch eventually got bored and went to turn themselves in to the security...

[Divinus Arma]

The lesson of 9/11 was:
He who does not strike first will be the first struck.

Sound familiar?

But Israel will initiate, not the U.S. Then Iran will either (a) retaliate or (b) whine.

I expect them to whine. Just like the last time those badass Israelis kicked 'em in the balls.

[Watchman]

Then again, the last time around Israel was the only one with nukes...

The lesson of 9/11 was:
He who does not strike first will be the first struck.

Personally I think it was more along the lines of "he whose watchdogs aren't up to snuff gets caught pants down", but anyway...

[Redleg]

Welcome them with open arms into the community of nuclear powers, by informing them that since they now have nuclear weapons their actions will be monitored even more so, and show them the pictures of the 100 odd missles that will be pointed in their direction. With the sutle warning that the first sign of nuclear aggression by them or any proxity of thiers - the missles will be launched.

Welcome them into the community of MAD. Or in this case - if you use the weapon your nation will be destoryed. (Since I doubt they will have the capablity to harm most nations.)

[Watchman]

Pretty much my point exactly. Having nukes and a belligerent stance is a really good way to get your assorted coordinates input to those funny long metal cigars that spend a whole lot of time under water under various flags...

[Don Corleone]

I agree. There's no stopping Iran getting the bomb, only controlling what they do with it. That being said, I will continue to fear, perhaps irrationally to some, that Iran will conclude that nobody will be able to trace a dirty bomb back to them and their intelligence services will leak it to their friends in the shadow world. It would be a mistake on their part, but tell that to the 50,000 people that die from radiation poisoning in Tel Aviv. Bombing Tehran won't bring them back.

[Divinus Arma]

Welcome them with open arms into the community of nuclear powers, by informing them that since they now have nuclear weapons their actions will be monitored even more so, and show them the pictures of the 100 odd missles that will be pointed in their direction. With the sutle warning that the first sign of nuclear aggression by them or any proxity of thiers - the missles will be launched.

Welcome them into the community of MAD. Or in this case - if you use the weapon your nation will be destoryed. (Since I doubt they will have the capablity to harm most nations.)

Great idea except for a couple of problems:

(1) Discreet distribution of nuclear materials to "extra-national" elements

(2) Development of additional nuclear capabilities complimented by advances in rocket technology allowing them to strike further away

(3) The institutionalized martyr mentality coupled with the nuclear capability


All make Iran a unique problem.

[Watchman]

*shrug* And how to you propose to keep the apparently fairly competent and well-connected Irani spooks from leaking the gunk if they seriously want to ? Heck, they don't even need a mature nuke to do it; they could just give the leftovers from their program if they scuttle it...

Although how they would keep the pesky inspectors from noticing the amounts don't add up is a bit beyond me.

[Divinus Arma]

*shrug* And how to you propose to keep the apparently fairly competent and well-connected Irani spooks from leaking the gunk if they seriously want to ? Heck, they don't even need a mature nuke to do it; they could just give the leftovers from their program if they scuttle it...

Although how they would keep the pesky inspectors from noticing the amounts don't add up is a bit beyond me.

Which is why we should blow 'em up.

[Don Corleone]

*shrug* And how to you propose to keep the apparently fairly competent and well-connected Irani spooks from leaking the gunk if they seriously want to ? Heck, they don't even need a mature nuke to do it; they could just give the leftovers from their program if they scuttle it...

Although how they would keep the pesky inspectors from noticing the amounts don't add up is a bit beyond me.

How would I? If we have documentation that prooves that the Iranians WERE doing this, I think it would require whatever military action necessary to dismantle Iran's nuclear program and set them back far enough that it wouldn't be a concern again for decades to come.

Leaking fissable material to known terrorists is a crime against humanity. You discuss it like you think it would be a neat parlor trick. Are you secretly hoping that they do or something?

[Watchman]

Great idea except for a couple of problems:

(1) Discreet distribution of nuclear materials to "extra-national" elements

(2) Development of additional nuclear capabilities complimented by advances in rocket technology allowing them to strike further away

(3) The institutionalized martyr mentality coupled with the nuclear capability


All make Iran a unique problem.

And playing hardball has proven such a practical and effective way of dealing with them in the past too, hasn't it ?

Whatever else the mullahs may be, one thing you can count on is they don't really fancy their glorious Islamic Republic (presumably supposed to be the seed of a new Caliphate or something similarly lofty) getting nuked, invaded and/or generally manhandled by seriously PO'd Western powers after they get "careless" with their little toys. The Western powers built their nuclear deterrents against the USSR (or in the case of Israel, against *everyone else* in the Middle East...), and still retain a fair bit of those systems. A poor upstart like Iran can't even hope to compete, and no doubt knows it.

No, their nuke is like everyone else's - a deterrent and a status symbol. It's a trump card you can fall back on under pressure, not something you start playing fast and loose with which result in everyone kicking down the poker table and skinning their smokewagons, most likely at the first offender.

[Tribesman]

But Israel will initiate, not the U.S. Then Iran will either (a) retaliate or (b) whine.

I expect them to whine. Just like the last time those badass Israelis kicked 'em in the balls.

??????
Divinus , Could you enlighten me as to when badass Israel kicked Iran ?

[Reenk Roink]

One, Iran's loud hardliner has said that nuclear weapons are "against their religion" and "out of the way."

Still, say America goes and attacks Iran (note: It doesn't matter whether one thinks it is good or bad, as these are just opinions, but America is the most powerful nation in the world, and it follows the principle of "lookout for #1") This would be an interesting development as even though the US has military prowess like no other, a group of militia and another group of terrorists have been giving them a fight not seen since the rice farmers of Vietnam...How would they fare against Iran along with this? Also, you gotta remember that after the US invaded Iraq, some of the same muslim clerics who condemned 9-11, called for a jihad, as a foreign invader had set foot into the land of Islam...Then again, Iran is Shiite, so the Sunni majority might not be so willing to help...

I shall sit back and watch, plotting my upcoming takeover of the world...

[Watchman]

How would I? If we have documentation that prooves that the Iranians WERE doing this, I think it would require whatever military action necessary to dismantle Iran's nuclear program and set them back far enough that it wouldn't be a concern again for decades to come.

You do realize that if you find in a document proof that Iran unloaded enough radioactives to irradiate two major cities say, oh, two years ago, it's kinda pointless to splatter Iran for it by then ? That doesn't exactly miraculously return the nasty stuff to their old vaults now does it ? It would leave you with a serious problem in your hands in a geopolitically problematic region at a time when you very urgently need to focus all your attention elsewhere, tho'.

Leaking fissable material to known terrorists is a crime against humanity. You discuss it like you think it would be a neat parlor trick. Are you secretly hoping that they do or something?

Why would I ? Mushroom clouds were never my thing. But I do fail to see what good getting all jumped up and emotional over a thus far wholly hypotethic issue - that to boot requires very detached and icy analysis to handle - does to anyone ?

Mind you, I may also have learned too much of the looming radioactive Sword of Damocles that hung over the whole world for the five decades of the Cold War to be overly impressed by the idea of ugly radiation fallout in some city. Yes, a lot of people would die quite horribly - but then again, that's what happens all the time in several godforsaken "low-intensity conflicts" of the world too.

Perspective.

[Redleg]

Great idea except for a couple of problems:

(1) Discreet distribution of nuclear materials to "extra-national" elements

That is why you inform them of the use of the weapon by any proxity will result in their destruction. Its not all that hard to track down who gave who what when it involves nuclear weapons. Look at the Russian nuclear weapon's program as an examble - there is more danger of thier weapons being sold to questionable characters.

(2) Development of additional nuclear capabilities complimented by advances in rocket technology allowing them to strike further away

So let them. MAD does not prevent development of the weapons - what it does is promise the country who uses the weapon first what will happen also. There is no way Iran can afford to developed the number of weapons they would need to survive an arms race - since they are starting 60 years behind the power they believe to be their number one enemy after Israel.

(3) The institutionalized martyr mentality coupled with the nuclear capability

Institutionalized martyr mentality when facing the sure destruction of thier home does not bode well for that mentality. Take a look at North Korea, they have been promising for decades to re-unite the two countries since the end of the war before the old man's death. What happened when he died, absolutely nothing. And it was suspected that they had a nuclear weapon in 1994 - a crude one but one nevertheless.

All make Iran a unique problem.

Let the people of the country understand that they have entered into the community of MAD because of thier leader's desire to have a nuclear weapon. I do not for a second believe that the majority of the Iran population wants to see their country destoryed just to destroy Israel or the United States. If the population knows what is at risk - they tend to vote in leaders who will not assure their destruction. Iran on the surface has a democratically elected government, lets see if they can fulfill their obligations before going to war over the nuclear issue.

Having said that - if the knuckleheads in charge of Iran make an aggressive move or spout such rhetroic - then give them a taste of what could happen. Limited strikes do not make a declared war, nor does it require massive ground forces to accomplish such an action.

Someday the United States might have to fight Iran because of thier idealogue statements and stance. The time is not now, the United States must complete the two already committed to conflicts before entering a third. Of course we can accomplish an invasion and destruction of the Iran government - but it will take a full scale mobilization of all our resources to include every National Guard Division, Seperate Brigade, and unit. The population of the United States will not support such an aggresive action under the condition that they might have a nuclear weapon, or that they are developing nuclear weapons.

Maintain the current sanction, the current rhetoric, and even impose harsher economic sanctions on Iran. But military action in this case should be after the current conflicts are resolved.

[Reenk Roink]

Here's a funny fact about the Cold War ...

The Soviet Union called their policy with nukes "Peaceful Coexistance"

The US called theirs "Massive Retaliation"

[Kagemusha]

I agree with Redleg since we cant stop Iran having them we should make them know in what kind of threat they are living becouse they wanted to get in the big boys game.

[Watchman]

Added up to about the same thing, though. Rhetoric again, in this case of the very Orwellian sort the Soviets were famous for.

[Ice]

I'd be willing to go war if they continued their nuclear program. Even if that means I might be conscripted if we lacked manpower.

[bmolsson]

The only way to beat Iran is to passivize them with prosperity. The Iranian people still remember how it is to have money. Theocracy will in the end fail, just like communism. A arms race can only go one way for Iran, failure.
In the case of Israel, I believe it would be a big mistake to attack Iran. Israel need to work on the image and get the world opinion with them. Even Sharon seems to have realized that, a pity we won't see him finish what he started.

[solypsist]

In about eight months, a few large objects will 'fall off' a stealth bomber making an overflight and incidentally wipe out Iran's nuclear sites.

Iran will blame the Americans, who will deny it. Israel will step up, claim responsibility, and threaten the same treatment to any other Middle Eastern country which seeks to develop nukes - just as they took out Osirak 1 and Osirak 2 in Iraq some years back. Ahmadinejad, who has recently been wandering further and further off the reservation to the embarrassment of his countrymen, will suddenly have a new groundswell of support from people calling him a 'seer', and yet again the Middle East is off to the races.

They make nuclear material in the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and can't account for all of it. We want to let them make more in Sandy Crack, Tehran, and account for basically none of it? There's no way they'll approve oversight.

I accept that they should have the right to harness nuclear energy, but we should also be able to trust them. We can't do **** about North Korea right now - despite the nutter in charge - because they have nukes and will hit Tokyo. I'm not sure we want a situation in which we can't do anything about Iran because they have nukes and will hit Tel Aviv

[Sartaq]

make love not war

I would only support it if there is pretty much worldwide support & contributions for it. There has to be other ways to solve this. Ways less costly and lazier than a full invasion.

[Lentonius]

if they show military hostility we have a reason to go to war.

unfortunately, mr.bush has built himself a reputation of being rather 'trigger friendly' towards the middle east. if they dont obviously show they are aggresive then bush would make himself more enemies by invading...