US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

If you have a bunch of crazy theocratic loonies pursuing a nuclear weapon come hell or high water with economic sanctions, do you have a better alternative, or do you just let them stockpile nukes?

Nobody's saying to put boots on the ground. Just crater their nuclear facilities. This can quite easily be done with nuclear weapons. Nuclear facilities+nuclear weapons=nuclear accident. You don't need a fleet of bombers to do this. Just one or two B-2s, perhaps with a few F-22s flying air cover (though they need to be flyable first...they have an oxygen problem atm). Just go in the dead of night, carry out a quick bombing run, then get out of dodge while everyone else is none the wiser.

Then you can probably deny everything too if there's no evidence of American/Israeli intervention beyond the fact that those stupid Iranian loonies had their reactor go boom.

That's not believable at all unless you also set off their nuclear safeguards first. Nuclear plants don't just go "boom" without setting off a plethora of alarms first.

I guess you can do that covertly but I'm betting Iran has those facilities pretty well guarded.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

If you have a bunch of crazy theocratic loonies pursuing a nuclear weapon come hell or high water with economic sanctions, do you have a better alternative, or do you just let them stockpile nukes?

Better than a nuclear first strike? Oh, gosh, you're right, we can't possibly think of one...

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

If you have a bunch of crazy theocratic loonies pursuing a nuclear weapon come hell or high water with economic sanctions, do you have a better alternative, or do you just let them stockpile nukes?

Nobody's saying to put boots on the ground. Just crater their nuclear facilities. This can quite easily be done with nuclear weapons. Nuclear facilities+nuclear weapons=nuclear accident. You don't need a fleet of bombers to do this. Just one or two B-2s, perhaps with a few F-22s flying air cover (though they need to be flyable first...they have an oxygen problem atm). Just go in the dead of night, carry out a quick bombing run, then get out of dodge while everyone else is none the wiser.

Then you can probably deny everything too if there's no evidence of American/Israeli intervention beyond the fact that those stupid Iranian loonies had their reactor go boom.

Excuse me, I am somewhat relieved that you are not deciding anything. Your naive view of these things is astonishing.

It would just give a casus belli for retaliation and whats worse, it would open pandora's box, because it is also a precedent for the usage of nuclear weapons in future conflicts. This cannot be in the interest of humanity. (except you are equally as lunatic as you assume the iranian regime to be)

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

If you have a bunch of crazy theocratic loonies pursuing a nuclear weapon come hell or high water with economic sanctions, do you have a better alternative, or do you just let them stockpile nukes?

Nobody's saying to put boots on the ground. Just crater their nuclear facilities. This can quite easily be done with nuclear weapons. Nuclear facilities+nuclear weapons=nuclear accident. You don't need a fleet of bombers to do this. Just one or two B-2s, perhaps with a few F-22s flying air cover (though they need to be flyable first...they have an oxygen problem atm). Just go in the dead of night, carry out a quick bombing run, then get out of dodge while everyone else is none the wiser.

Then you can probably deny everything too if there's no evidence of American/Israeli intervention beyond the fact that those stupid Iranian loonies had their reactor go boom.

Demongod86, we in the West need to proceed with caution over this entire situation with Iran.

Just because the media is spinning this into a "Iran has nukes and will destroy Israel with them any minute!" does not mean it's true.

If you remember how we got into the Iraq war, it was not over what happened on 9/11, it was a fear generated by the White House and Israel to destroy Saddam Hussein because he supposedly had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
He did not.

We don't want, or need, another war.
I strongly recommend you read this article.
It puts some of this situation into perspective.

Iran Already Has Nuclear Weapons. Really?

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

If you have a bunch of crazy theocratic loonies pursuing a nuclear weapon come hell or high water with economic sanctions, do you have a better alternative, or do you just let them stockpile nukes?

Actually yeah, the latter. I may catch alot of flak for that on these boards, but sometimes I wish that Iran had nukes. Why? Because then, the current situation ends where Israel can act with total impunity and pursue their goal of Greater Israel, which is the root of the cancer currently plaguing the middle east. It would change towards a MAD style balance of power, which I'd consider preferable to the current situation.

"Crazy theocratic loonies" you have on both sides, in Iran AND in Israel. You're aware of that?

Nobody's saying to put boots on the ground. Just crater their nuclear facilities. This can quite easily be done with nuclear weapons. Nuclear facilities+nuclear weapons=nuclear accident. You don't need a fleet of bombers to do this. Just one or two B-2s, perhaps with a few F-22s flying air cover (though they need to be flyable first...they have an oxygen problem atm). Just go in the dead of night, carry out a quick bombing run, then get out of dodge while everyone else is none the wiser.

See, this is exactly the madness I'm referring to. First of all, it's impossible to just bomb a nuclear facility in a way to make it look like an accident. It's totally retarded to even THINK it might. Look at how reactors melt down when they have nuclear accidents. It's completely different to the kind of explosions that would result from aerial bombardment. This is just a pipe dream.

What would happen next? The Middle East will rise up in flames. You can safely assume that all Arab Spring nations will immediately align alongside Iran. There's a realistic chance that this will push Pakistan over the breaking point, with either a coup, or by having the public backlash forcing the current uneasy alliance with the US to be terminated. Expect increased activities against US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz (easily done via missiles, especially once 1-2 ships are sunk), with massive impact for the oil market, leading to skyrocketing prices and huge windfalls for the Halliburton connection.

The media will show stories about hundreds or maybe even thousands of deaths in Iran, leading to a gigantic public backlash. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of European countries would quit NATO, and I'd definitely push for the same for Germany. Expect the US and Israel to be international pariahs for quite a while.

All of that without mentioning that the US and Israel will have committed an atrocity and instigated a war of aggression. But hey, you're the good ones, of course. The heroes and saviors of freedom.

Then you can probably deny everything too if there's no evidence of American/Israeli intervention beyond the fact that those stupid Iranian loonies had their reactor go boom.

If you really think it could work out like this, and if you feel like the list of repercussions I wrote down above doesn't matter, go ahead. Cowboy diplomacy at its best.

[Ithekro]

Also I'd question the ability of our weapons to actually destroy the Iranian nuclear research installations. If it is, as reported, inside of a mountain that might rival NORAD's deepest moutain base, than a nuclear bombing mission won't manage to destroy it from the outside, thus making that sort of a first strike against such a target meaningless.

Even the Israelis think that it would require boots on the ground to sneak inside and blow it up in the old fashion commando way. And that is no mean feat considering how well guarded those places have to be. Plus if caught, it could easily start a war without having accomplished anything. Or at the very least be used as propaganda and embarassment to the countries involved in the attack (Bay of Pig for President Kennedy or the failed rescue of the Hostages in Iran under the Carter administration).

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Mentar

The media will show stories about hundreds or maybe even thousands of deaths in Iran, leading to a gigantic public backlash. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of European countries would quit NATO, and I'd definitely push for the same for Germany. Expect the US and Israel to be international pariahs for quite a while.

Wait... If everyone but the US quits Nato, wouldn't it make more sense to kick them out instead?

[Haak]

Can the US veto that?

[Ithekro]

I don't know if anyone in NATO has any kind of veto power. However the United States does provide a very large part of NATO's budget, and at least use to provide a large amount of the manpower and war machine as well. The rest of NATO could kick the US out I suppose, but then they would all have to increase their defense budgets to make up the difference. And possibly increase the size of their militaries to compensate for the loss of the US military.

Depending on what they wish for NATO to do in the future that is.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Wait... If everyone but the US quits Nato, wouldn't it make more sense to kick them out instead?

Nah, there's always the British poodle, and I'm afraid that even my country wouldn't change its consciously-blind-always-pro-Israel stance due to historical reasons all too well known. But I'd expect the public backlash to be severe.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I don't know if anyone in NATO has any kind of veto power. However the United States does provide a very large part of NATO's budget, and at least use to provide a large amount of the manpower and war machine as well. The rest of NATO could kick the US out I suppose, but then they would all have to increase their defense budgets to make up the difference. And possibly increase the size of their militaries to compensate for the loss of the US military.

Depending on what they wish for NATO to do in the future that is.

Whether everyone leaves NATO or they kick the US out, it's the same. They'd have to find new arrangements with regards to Defense.

[Ithekro]

France left NATO once, didn't they? Under de Gaulle?

[ChainLegacy]

Kicking the US out of NATO... fun times.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

France left NATO once, didn't they? Under de Gaulle?

Yes they did but I can't remember how many years passed before they got back in .

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Yes they did but I can't remember how many years passed before they got back in .

From 1967 to 2009.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

France left NATO once, didn't they? Under de Gaulle?

France remained a member of NATO but left the military command structure for a while. Afaik no French troops were allowed to be placed under NATO command and an the country relied on an independent nuclear strike force instead of taking part in the nuclear weapons sharing agreement.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

It isn't the nuke so much as the people with the red button to launch it.

If it can reasure you, any possible nuke would probably not be under the Iranian's president's control but most likely under the Supreme Leader's .

Speaking of another religious nut or of a liar:
Cain Says God Persuaded Him To Run For President
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=142271365
He might some need medial attention...

[Anh_Minh]

And speaking of nutjobs...

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Whatever happened to "if they wanted to do it, they would have already done it, therefore they don't want to do it".

In case you haven't heard, your military has been in tatters for long years, spread extremely thin with multiple deployments forced on your soldiers against without sufficient "home" time based on your own regulations. You might also have heard that you have a dramatic budget deficit. And you might have heard that you're unable to re-engineer the narrative required to justify a war of aggression in the forum of world opinion.

Look at North Korea, they are much more threatening to South Korea than Iran ever was. They've even sunk South Korean ships multiple times. Why did they never get attacked? Because they have nukes. And because they don't have oil and don't threaten Israel. What happened to Iraq? Does Iran have oil? Does Iran have a bone to pick with Israel?

Draw your own conclusions. If I was in the shoes of Chamenei, I'd want to get nukes rather sooner than later.

Seriously. We have the delivery systems. If we wanted to nuke Iran for some reason right now, we very well have the means to do it and have had the means for a good decade or so.

And you're openly threatening to start a war of aggression against Iran. Read the newspapers.

Ditto Israel. It's carried out covert operations against Iran before, and I'm sure if it wanted to, assuming it has nukes, could put a few under the wings of its strike fighters, drop them on something, and call it a day. That or just launch a nuclear missile.

Only in the dreams of an imbecile who has played too much MW3. Which encompasses the entire row of GOP candidates at the moment, with the possible exception of Paul and Huntsman.

The whole "they have nukes so we need them to" is bogus for that reason in my mind. So far, all nuclear armed nations have shown restraint. But a nation led by religious nutjobs acquiring nuclear missiles that finances terrorist activity? That's unprecedented.

Iran as a country hasn't initiated a war on neighbors for ages. America, Israel and their cronies (Saddam) have, time and time again. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Tell me: What differentiates an American Predator drone pilot who torches the car of suspected Al-Qaida fighters from a Taliban who explodes an IED of an American Humvee driving over it?

And I believe the IAEA did release statements about Iran's nuclear program not being fully peaceful.

True. Yet, if Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons, it would be well within their rights of a sovereign nation. They could do that and by international law neither America nor Israel would have a right to deny them that. You're aware of that?

Honestly, all of this talk about "war being too expensive" is nonsense. War is only expensive if you're going for a prolonged, protracted, boots-on-the-ground, territorial occupation nonsense as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, that's ridiculous, and should never have been done.

It seems that regardless of the consequences of a bombing mission (successful or not) you still think that it could be done like a mission in a flight simulator computer game. You want to know why the US under Bush were considered the bigges threat for world peace worldwide?

How much does it cost to send a few planes, a few of which are carrying a certain type of bomb, to fly over some target, drop a few bombs, and get the heck out, leaving everyone none the wiser?

That's why.

[DonQuigleone]

The way to destroy a dictatorship is not through sheer force. Force alone is of limited use, and dictatorships are not physical things that can be destroyed, dictatorships exist in the minds of it's subjects.

A dictatorship must be destroyed in the minds of it's subjects, only then can force be used effectively.

Dictatorship is perpetuated by ignorance. The way to destroy dictatorship is through knowledge, when the citizens of a dictatorship realise there is a democratic alternative, that the democratic alternative is superior, and that they are capable of of creating this democratic alternative, then the dictatorship will be destroyed. All that will be left is to finish off it's physical vestiges.

When it comes to solving the problem of Iran, we have to think less along the lines of Iraq, and more along the lines of Libya, Tunisia or Egypt. Obviously it's early days, but those 3 are having a much less rocky road to democracy then Iraq did.

America did not need to occupy the entire middle east to bring stable democratic government, the Arabs demonstrated their own will in the Arab spring. If America hadn't had such a sour relationship with the Arabs, they could have placed themselves at the head of this movement, and been a beacon for the arabs to aspire towards, as an alternative to Islamism. Instead we've had to play catch up. We soiled our democracy in the last 10 years, and so we can no longer hold it as the model it should be. We forgot Ben Franklin's words. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

America can achieve a lot more by leading by example, then by actively meddling in the affairs of other countries. I think past history has shown that it's fairly often does more harm then good (particularly where deposing governments is concerned), let's not forget that the last truly democratic government in Iran was deposed by US and UK interests. We shouldn't be in the business of deposing other people's democratically elected governments, no matter how much we disagree with them, and we should always try our best to foster peaceful democratic movements around the world. That's how you "win".