Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Should Iran Get Nukes?
Topic Started: Sep 6 2006, 02:38 PM (619 Views)
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
(oops)
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Rick Zimmer
Sep 6 2006, 08:30 PM
Dewey
Sep 6 2006, 09:25 PM
The answer to that question is obvious. The more telling question is "How will we know when negotiation has failed?", or put another way, "How long must negotiations be attempted before their failure is conceded?" Just as there are some who have no use for any attempt at negotiations, there are at least as many who will never agree to military action, on the grounds that "we just didn't give diplomacy enough of a chance; we rushed to a military option!"

What sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish?

That question isn't relevant until the one I've identified is answered.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Sep 7 2006, 07:23 AM
Rick Zimmer
Sep 6 2006, 08:30 PM
Dewey
Sep 6 2006, 09:25 PM
The answer to that question is obvious. The more telling question is "How will we know when negotiation has failed?", or put another way, "How long must negotiations be attempted before their failure is conceded?" Just as there are some who have no use for any attempt at negotiations, there are at least as many who will never agree to military action, on the grounds that "we just didn't give diplomacy enough of a chance; we rushed to a military option!"

What sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish?

That question isn't relevant until the one I've identified is answered.

I'll play along:

Let us say that we just know that diplomacy has failed right this moment. Heck, let's just say that God just revealed this knowledge and miraculously put it in every American's head so there is no disagreement and no confusion whatsoever among Americans that diplomacy has decidedly failed, and every American agree that there is to be no more negotiation from now on.

Now what sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
bachophile
Sep 7 2006, 06:01 AM
haaretz article on this very subject...


Let them have nukes

By Reuven Pedatzur

For the more than four decades of Cold War, the human race was not destroyed due to mutual deterrence between the two superpowers. The strategic stability was based on a balance of fear and on what was called MAD - mutual assured destruction. It was clear to both sides that even if one managed to surprise its rival and strike it with all the nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the victim would still have enough bombs to wreak total destruction on the attacker.

The theory of nuclear deterrence, which was developed mainly by American academics, underwent quite a few changes from the mid-1940s until MAD was formulated in the mid-1960s, mainly by then-U.S. secretary of defense Robert McNamara. However, from the moment McNamara convinced the Soviet leadership that the willingness of both sides to expose themselves to total destruction was the only way to achieve stability, this viewpoint became the bedrock of nuclear deterrence - and the principle that ensured the survival of the world.

The addition of other countries to the nuclear club did not lead to a change in the theory. Britain, France and China did not challenge this viewpoint, and it was clear that fear of total destruction by the Soviet Union (in the case of Britain and France) or by the United States (in the case of China) deterred them from using nuclear weapons.


The nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan in May 1998 gave rise to a fear that the theory would fail. There was talk about the two countries' cultural differences, the religious element of the conflict and the extremism of the Pakistanis. And in fact a year later the Kargil crisis erupted between India and Pakistan, and threatened to lead to war. As it turned out, it was actually the two countries' nuclear capabilities that caused their leaders to exercise restraint. The fear that the crisis would deteriorate into nuclear war prevented an escalation.

This belief that nuclear weapons were the ultimate deterrent also led David Ben-Gurion to become the architect of the Israeli nuclear program. Even the most radical Arab leaders who aspired to destroy Israel would be deterred if they knew it possessed nuclear weapons. The lessons of the Cold War only confirmed Ben-Gurion's thesis, and made it clear that at the moment of truth, Israel's nuclear capability would deter anyone aspiring to destroy the country.

Good against evil

And now comes Prof. Bernard Lewis, one of the world's foremost authorities on the Middle East, who rejects this thesis' validity for the region. What was true during the Cold War does not apply to Iran, says Lewis.

"There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons," wrote Lewis in The Wall Street Journal on August 8. "This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples ... School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom."

He concludes that if Iran has nuclear weapons, its leaders will not adopt the restrictions accepted by the heads of the other nuclear states. There is great concern, he writes, that after arming themselves with nuclear bombs, the ayatollahs will launch them at Israel.

"A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines."

Lewis discusses two possible deterrent factors against Iranian use of nuclear weapons: "The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel."

In referring to the certainty that the destruction of Israel would also result in the deaths of millions of Palestinians, Lewis uses the example of Al-Qaida's 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks killed a few American diplomats and hundreds of Muslims. Lewis writes: "Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims."

"The second deterrent - the threat of direct retaliation on Iran - is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today .... This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision ... for Shi'ite Muslims [this means] the long-awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced," writes Lewis.

"In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead - hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement."

A rational leadership

This is Lewis' apocalyptic theory. Frightening, but not necessarily valid. Lewis' thesis is based on generalizations and projections - from individual cases of suicide bombers to the national level - and it ignores our historical experience regarding the behavior of the Iranian leadership in previous conflicts.

Up until a few years ago, Lewis' theories were accepted as valid and as a basis for American policy in the Middle East. However, after he "abandoned academic caution" following September 11, in the words of his critics, his opinions have become very controversial among Middle East scholars.

Lewis was one of the first to pressure the U.S. administration into embarking on a post-September 11 armed conflict against Saddam Hussein. Lewis was also an important player in the theory that after the war, it would be possible to establish a democratic regime in Iraq.

Without getting into the debates between Lewis and his critics, it is clear his view and analysis of our region largely suffers from obsolete thinking. In light of that we should examine the thesis of the Iranian apocalypse. Lewis states that just as Muslim terrorists were willing to strike Western targets even though they knew many Muslims would be killed, the Iranian leaders would not hesitate to strike at Israel and kill millions of Muslims. That is a projection from the individual to the national level, and is not necessarily valid. What a single suicide bomber is willing to do does not prove anything about the decisions of a national leadership.

Past experience shows that the radical Iranian regime, headed by the most extreme of them all, Ayatollah Khomeini, behaved with absolute rationality at the moment of truth. That was the case during the Iran-Iraq war. Khomeini declared he would never sign a cease-fire agreement with Iraq until it surrendered. However, after dozens of Iraqi missiles began striking Tehran and thousands of residents were harmed, Khomeini changed his position and signed a cease-fire agreement with Saddam Hussein.

In that case, the missiles were conventional. It is almost certain that when the threat of Israeli reprisal involves nuclear missiles, the Iranian leaders will refrain from using nuclear weapons.

There is no Iranian national interest that could justify the country's total destruction. Lewis' claim, that the destruction of Iran could be justified by an apocalyptic worldview, does not accord completely with the assumption that the Iranians, in spite of being Muslims, are not fundamentally different from other people in the world.

We can assume that as opposed to Lewis' assertions, it is possible to build a stable system of future nuclear deterrence between Israel and Iran. This will of course require changes in Israel's nuclear policy and a transition to open nuclear deterrence. In addition, Israel will have to build a reliable second-strike capability, which has to a great extent been completed with the acquisition of the Dolphin submarine.

Mutual deterrence will be based on new rules of the game, with Israel making its red lines clear to Iran. For example, Iran will be made aware that the moment a missile is detected heading westward from its territory, the Israeli nuclear response will be automatically activated - without waiting for the missile to land, and without examining whether it is nuclear. Moreover, it will be clear to Iran that even if it were to surprise Israel and strike it without being detected in advance, Israel would still have enough nuclear missiles to destroy all of Iran.

I see two problems with this analysis:

1. "Lewis states that just as Muslim terrorists were willing to strike Western targets even though they knew many Muslims would be killed, the Iranian leaders would not hesitate to strike at Israel and kill millions of Muslims. That is a projection from the individual to the national level, and is not necessarily valid. What a single suicide bomber is willing to do does not prove anything about the decisions of a national leadership."

The national leaderships of several Arab countries including Iran have had no problem in the past with using Palestinians as pawns in their struggle against Israel. The privation and even death of Palestinians, even in great numbers, has long been to the their advantage. I see no problem at all with Iran sacrificing Palestinians by the thousands in striking a nuclear blow against Iran.

2. "Past experience shows that the radical Iranian regime, headed by the most extreme of them all, Ayatollah Khomeini, behaved with absolute rationality at the moment of truth. That was the case during the Iran-Iraq war. Khomeini declared he would never sign a cease-fire agreement with Iraq until it surrendered. However, after dozens of Iraqi missiles began striking Tehran and thousands of residents were harmed, Khomeini changed his position and signed a cease-fire agreement with Saddam Hussein."

And yet, at the height of the war, they had no problem sending waves of unarmed civilians against the Iraqi lines to certain death. many hundreds of thousands were "martyred" in this way so there is an inconsistency with the belief that Iran would never sacrifice its civilian population. Especially, when a lethal blow against a mortal enemy (Israel) could be delivered.

"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
There is no certainty one way or the other.

The problem we face with Iran becomes broader... it goes beyond can they have nukes or not, to can we afford for there to be a regime such as Iran's dominating a region crucial to national and international interests?
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Mikhailoh
Sep 7 2006, 06:24 AM
There is no certainty one way or the other.

The problem we face with Iran becomes broader... it goes beyond can they have nukes or not, to can we afford for there to be a regime such as Iran's dominating a region crucial to national and international interests?

It seems to me that Bush has paved the way for this, it has now become reality and there is little we can do about it.

Maybe it is time to accept the new reality and deal with it.

Explain to me why the US and Iran cannot work towards becoming allies -- or at least cooperators in the Middle East.

Not easy, of course. Lots of distrust and anger to get over. But why can't it be done?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I suppose that ending the practice of saying, "Death to America" five times a day at the end of prayers as they have for the last 25 years might be a start.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Sep 7 2006, 05:07 AM
Dewey
Sep 7 2006, 07:23 AM
Rick Zimmer
Sep 6 2006, 08:30 PM
Dewey
Sep 6 2006, 09:25 PM
The answer to that question is obvious. The more telling question is "How will we know when negotiation has failed?", or put another way, "How long must negotiations be attempted before their failure is conceded?" Just as there are some who have no use for any attempt at negotiations, there are at least as many who will never agree to military action, on the grounds that "we just didn't give diplomacy enough of a chance; we rushed to a military option!"

What sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish?

That question isn't relevant until the one I've identified is answered.

I'll play along:

Let us say that we just know that diplomacy has failed right this moment. Heck, let's just say that God just revealed this knowledge and miraculously put it in every American's head so there is no disagreement and no confusion whatsoever among Americans that diplomacy has decidedly failed, and every American agree that there is to be no more negotiation from now on.

Now what sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish?

No need to be "playing along," I'm entirely serious. The question, as I stated it, includes the assumption that

a. Negotiation and diplomacy should be the first method of attempting dispute resolution; and

b. That, at least under some conditions, negotiation may succeed.

However, in order to discuss the issue intelligently at all, it must also be conceded that:

a. Negotiation does not always succeed; and that

b. If negotiation does not always succeed, there must be some reasonable manner of stipulating when it has run its course - a "timetable," if you will, for when further negotiation is either an exercise in futility, or worse, having been outsmarted by one's opponent to play for time needed to give the opponent the upper hand.

It's that "timetable," or series of types of negotiations, and how long each of those avenues of diplomacy should be enjoined, before it could be considered either pointless or a strategic defeat, that I'm seeking. If a person can't or won't at least offer a rough outline of what is considered reasonable avenues and timeframes, then the debate is pointless, because if a military option is ever subsequently undertaken, the argument will be that those stupid, or evil (or both) people just didn't give diplomacy "enough time" before charging ahead with the military option.

In other words, I'm calling for intellectual honesty in the debate.

There is another aspect of such intellectual honesty. Similar to the concession, indicated above, that diplomacy is a possible solution, and is to be the first option attempted; there is another concession - or admission - that needs to be made if it exists. If a person feels that by definition a military option will never succeed, this must be admitted upfront in any discssion of the issue - in fact, it makes discussion of the issue a pretty silly waste of time.

So before Rick's question should even be considered, the question I originally stated needs to be answered:

What would be considered a reasonable course of actions and venues, including a rough timeframe, for seeking a diplomatic solution before any military option might be reasonably considered; as well as honestly acknowledging if there is any preconceived position that the military option must never be played, since it is not considered a viable option from the outset.

If people can't discuss and answer those questions, any further discussion, sidetracking, or leapfrogging to questions further down the path is really pretty nonsensical.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Nope, it's perfectly OK to "leapfrog" (I think that term best fit my response to your question).

It's really very simple: Suppose say we colletively decide that diplomatic negotiation is over right now -- what sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish?

If you cannot answer that with that simple and that straight forward an assumption, how can you answer with conditionals?

If you really must have a conditional to predicate your answer, I'll try again: I say we marshall the UN to go for another Security Council resolution, one that is uninanimously backed by all members of the council, that requires the Iranian to give up all nuclear activities, and we set another deadline for October 31, 2006. We have bi-lateral and multi-lateral talks with Iran all the way through October 31, 2006, then we go for economic sanction through end of 2006. We go for more bi-lateral and multi-lateral talks all the way through end of 2006 as the sanction is in effect. Now comes 1/1/2007 and Iran is still not budging. We decide that enough is enough.

Now what sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish?

I am quite open to the possibility that might be one or more military solutions to this problem. Please show me one such solution that you might have in mind. If you do not like any of the assumption or hypothetical I provided above, please feel free to provide your own assumption/hypothetical and answer accordingly.

Fair?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2