[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I think you are slightly misunderstanding my position and (as I mentioned above) jumping to conclusions and then making arguments based on those. My position is that they cannot ultimately have nukes for the reasons stated. You are correct that with delay, they may be able to “sneak into” the nuclear club. There is a risk there. However, as of today, I think that risk is worth taking without a war. But if they continue on the path and are not overthrown/killed, then yes, I think war will be necessary.
“Time is money” as is said, and with time other opportunities may present themselves (challenges as well).
[/quote]
Then I am on board with your analysis. I thought you were supporting the “under no circumstances” crowd in which case it is not an appropriate strategy. Waiting is an option, but if folks like Leon Panetta are to be believed Iran will have a nuke within one year even with open bombings so we would not have long to wait.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Iran threatens Israel and the US every now and again. I take them at their word. We’ve discussed things above in this thread and I won’t go over them again. Let’s just say we disagree if you don’t think threatening to sink ships (and other such events) is a declaration of war.
But the larger point that I don’t understand here is the idea that Iran is not at fault and have been “drove them to it” (underlined). Who is “we”? The west? The US? Because of sanctions? Sanctions are being imposed because of the actions of Iran. If they stop their actions, the sanctions will go away. I cannot understand why you seem to be absolving Iran of their responsibility for their actions.
[/quote]
Well I can concede those would be threats of war if they are serious (I personally see much of this as blustering to save face so as not to appear weak at home), but if that is so then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We have, by those same lights, threatened open war already and many times over before many of these most recent sabre rattlings. Why can’t they? Hell Newt Gingrich is talking openly about setting up regime change plans.
These threats are not really what I was referring to when I was talking about open nuclear war of an aggressive nature. That I have seen little of.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sanctions don’t work for what? I don’t understand what you are saying at all. Above you are saying (perhaps) that sanctions are driving them to terrorism, now you say that they don’t work. It is my understanding that sanctions HAVE had an effect. Their actions/threats further indicate that they have.
[/quote]
Sanctions most definitely have an effect, just not usually the ones that the sanctioners want. If the idea is to get them to back down from enriching uranium they have and continue to fail miserably. This has been demonstrated in a number of countries. It does hurt the populations of those countries for obvious reasons, but it virtually never gets a country to concede anything or act better (think Cuba, Venezuela, Japan in WWII). That is all I meant. They do not “work” by the standard of achieving policy objectives.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
A very different situation, but SK goes back and forth with openings and closings. To me, this is just the latest “change” in their policy, and probably one meant to have an impact on the new leader. It’s been tried before, I hope it works this time. Long term, I think a lot of S. Koreans want reunification. “The path” is the question. Although, this should probably be in a different thread.
[/quote]
Well no two countries will ever be identical, but this is about as close to an analogy as we will find (rogue state, chatty leaders, nuclear threat, isolated, etc.). We can discuss in depth another time.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
YOU brought up the Taliban, so let’s examine them for a minute. They were presented with an existential situation (allowing UBL into the country to export terror). They agreed dispite where it lead. Then again an existential question when Bush said, “hand him over or else” (paraphrase). AGAIN they chose death.
IF the Iranian leadership is like the Taliban as you have implied, then they MUST be removed from power. The Taliban allowed UBL to attempt a nuclear strike against America from their soil. They allowed for numerous terrorist attacks. If they had had nuclear capacity, everything we know indicates they would have allowed UBL to use nuclear material. If Iran is like the Taliban, YOU are making the case for war.
You continue to talk about history. But I don’t think that you are correct in your assessments. Leaderships HAVE chosen to lose power/die instead of “the alternative” for a variety of reasons.
[/quote]
This has been talked about before but I think you are ignoring a very important point- what would have happened if they rejected UBL and/or turned him over? Their would have most likely been violent overthrow of their regime given 1) the supposed foundations of their regime, 2) the importance of UBL in their existence 3) and UBL as a symbol to the people.
It was most likely every bit an existential threat to align themselves with Bush as to oppose us. At least history was on their side when it came to resisting foreign powers in the long run. They had literally (and the jury is still out on their current government) defeated and repulsed every single major empire/power in the history of the world to some degree or another. Choosing between a popular uprising and having to fight off another empire they probably thought poor as the odds are that they stood a better chance of retaining power by resisting the US.
So this is not nearly as clear cut a riposte as many like to claim it is. They too were rational actors just put between a rock and hard place.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I think my assessment above that you “don’t care” about Japan/S.Korea may have been correct. How much of a “tantrum” are you willing to tolerate? I was in Japan in (when was it?) 2006 when NK missiles landed in the sea of Japan, so perhaps I see things differently because of that. If NK bombs Tokyo as part of their tantrum, would that be acceptable? If they shell another S. Korean Island? How do “you know” that they won’t do so as part of a tantrum? How do you know that their 20-something year old leader isn’t a nutcase who is willing to let terrorists have nuclear material? To me, you seem to be “doubling-down” on a psychological assessment.
But again, perhaps this should be in another thread.
[/quote]
As I said before, they are going to push the envelope as far as they can without tripping over the line or at least trying not to. And I care deeply for individuals of all nationalities it is part of the reason I oppose government as much as I do. No loss of life is acceptable in my mind, but what alternative is there save war? To be honest I am not necessarily opposed to war in these circumstances, but you have to make the call. North Korea is going to continue to act this way while always TRYING to avoid going too far. Doesn’t mean they might not fuck up and finally go to far. But my major point is they recognize dropping a nuke is definitely not an acceptable “chicken” tactic. They know that would definitely mean there swift destruction and thus that option is not really on the table. So for purposes of discussing a full on North Korean invasion of SK or a nuclear strike they are “harmless”. A poor choice of words, but that was my point.
[quote] [quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I simply cannot agree that we know for certainty that they would be “manageable” with a nuke. They seem quite unmanageable without one. I agree that the west should steel itself for a war if it comes to that. Where we seem to disagree is that I think the West and US should do A LOT to prevent getting to the point of them having a nuke. You seem to be suggesting that it is inevitable and thus we should just back off, grow ties, and hope they play nice with Israel and Saudi Arabia despite recent actions.
[/quote]
I do believe it is inevitable without regime change (through war or uprising) so we need to get comfortable with the idea unless we are willing to go to war over it.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
This is primarily where I think you are “skipping” to the last step without thinking through the steps to achieve the long term result. I agree in the “long-long term” goals. Further, you seem to be ignoring “bad times” in history and the “brave new world” of WMDs we live in today. What I mean is that China was a serious menace with Mao at the helm. It took until '79 before liberalization occurred and only then did ties start to get better. With Vietnam it took until '86. (why do you keep saying “North Vietnam” btw?). In terms of today, WMDs and nukes (+terrormism) are MUCH more dangerous today than they were in the past (for example, when Japan tried to send hot air balloons with diseases at the US during the war (or whatever it was that they sent). Unit 731 and the Nazi seemed to open the door for this stuff and things progressed. Globalization means a fool from Yemen can be given anthrax from Afghanistan, put on a plane in Nairobi headed for Los Angeles.
There have been plenty of crazies in history. Some have even taken control of countries and done crazy things. The lessons of history + our “Brave New World” (for me) mean that we must not let Iran get nukes.
Long term they may be able to join the community of nations. But in the short term they have indicated (through their actions) they may be crazy and “lack information” enough for them to use WMDs.
[/quote]
Broadly I would say that yes WMDs are far worse than they once were and thus more dangerous, but I think the mitigating factor here is the world is infinitely more connected and harmonious than it was then. At that time, Hitler/Germany had a very legitimate shot at taking Europe over unilaterally. Ditto for Japan and Southeast Asia. This would be inconceivable today. We are simply so interconnected no single nation could accomplish these goals with anything resembling a snow balls chance in hell. We also just work more closely, and depend more intimately, on each other than we did then which I would say overall offsets many of these concerns over rogue nation states with more powerful weapons. Remember at the time we dropped the bomb we did so knowing we were the only game in town. There was no mutual deterrence. That is not the case today.
Regarding China and Vietnam (North Vietnam was meant to distinguish the Communist government we antagonized versus the friendly relations we had with the South- should have simply stated that). We had to start somewhere and we did without reverting to war or preventing them from getting a nuke. And that is my point. They had all those things and more and now look where they are at. A fully fledged member of the community of nations.
Terrorists are definitely another kettle of fish, but that is simultaneously a small but impossible to eradicate problem. Getting rid of Iran certainly won’t stop this.
On a side note, I think the fact there are so many powerful individuals in the Iranian government actually discredits the notion of “crazy rogue state” theories. Sure you could have one truly batshit insane person, but 14? Or even a simple majority? Highly unlikely.
[quote] I fully confess I am basing all of my arguments on the fact that Iran is a rational actor. The regime wants to survive and does not want to be destroyed. I think the fact that they trade with us (or want to) and don’t go to war with Israel right now proves they are at a minimum pragmatic and not purely radical Islamists willing to blow themselves up at the drop of the hat, consequences be damned, to defend the faith. It may be all part of a cold, calculated plan but it proves at a minimum they are not the blind ideologues many portray them as.
But we can never know anything for certain. History and rationality tell us it is highly unlikely they will break with the above traditions.
[/quote]
The rational actor model works to a point. But does it explain the Taliban as discussed above? Idi Amin? There are others.
For me, the short term and “path” is as important as the long-term goal (if not more important). Do you have any thoughts on the “short term”? Why/how would opening up trade and allowing for a nuke work in the short term? I think you admitted they would continue to support terrorism in the short term, why don’t you think they would be willing to give terrorists nuclear materials?
As if all that is not enough of a reason not to let them have a nuke, what about proliferation? If Iran “goes nuclear” I think a number of countries also will in short order. Are there any countries that you would not want to have nuclear capacities? Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Would it be acceptable to arm groups in Somalia with Nukes? I don’t think I’m using a “slippery slope” too much here. A nuclear armed Iran would directly lead to a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia at a minimum, I fear.
Thanks for the conversation. [/quote]
I think very short term they would continue to support terrorism in a destabilizing way as they are now. Destabilizing the region ties us and others up and makes war and regime change with them far less palatable (this has been a success so far). Once they were more assured of their place in the world it would make zero sense to continue supporting terrorism. We would be there largest trading partner by some stretch (or we could be) as would our allies in Europe. Why would they kill the golden goose? Because they hate us to the point of risking total annihilation even if we didn’t threaten them at all? It is possible, but I’d say unlikely. I do not think they would give away nuclear material, because 1) it cost them a fucking fortune to develop so why in the hell would they give it to a random terrorist group and 2) they have to know we would track this down and once again destroy them. If we were willing to go to war in Afghanistan over 9/11 you think they honestly feel like we would not go to war over a fucking nuclear strike?
In terms of proliferation the question is not whether I am “comfortable” with them having a nuke (I am not entirely comfortable with anyone having nukes), but my overarching point for this discussion is what other alternative do we have? Assuming these countries had the capacity to develop these weapons (most of them do not) what can we really do about this? Sanctions? Haven’t done squat to date anywhere we have tried them. War? Sure, but to also use a slippery slope argument where would we stop? Are we really ready to fight the whole damn world over the possibility of trouble? It just isn’t a viable option. We can barely afford the military actions we have been mired in for 10 years let alone trying to get stuck into a few more intractable military conflicts.
We should certainly try to use diplomacy to stop anyone, including allies, from developing nukes. The existence of these weapons alone presents a threat of mishandling, theft, etc. But at a certain point we have to face reality and unless we have the will and the coin to fight each of these countries every time they try to develop nukes (if that was even possible to track) we need to look for a different strategy. I propose peace and trade along with vigilance. We need to be aware of the threats around us and be ready to defend ourselves, but I do not think the negatives of nuclear armed countries is outweighed by the positives of an armed conflict.
I have moral qualms as well with this situation, but that is an entirely different subject.
I hope that answers some of your questions. This was sloppily written but the best I can muster at the moment. I will leave you with the last word if you want it. I appreciate the civility and the insights.