MAD doesn’t work when a country has leaders and people that are actually mad (insane).
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
How bout our president?[/quote]
I think he would use them if they were used on us.[/quote]
I think BHO would wait till half of the US civilian population was gone before he would retaliate. He would wait too long.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The point of deterrence is not so much a question of whether or not they will use the nuclear device in combat scenarios, but whether or not their many other activities in support of terrorist organization will be increased and emboldened by their possession of the ultimate threat. It is that particualr vein of reasoning that we must be alert to and prepared for.
What’s to prevent them from sending more advanced weapons to Hamas or Hezbollah or the Taliban to escalate their wars if they have the fall-back protection of nuclear firepower. How do we deter an increase in these types of activities given their current proclivities for suporting these organizations and fomenting unrest WITHOUT nukes once they do actually possess them?[/quote]
That’s a great point. If they wind up with a decent yield nuke and a delivery system what’s to stop them from ratcheting up everything else with one hand, with the finger of the other on “the button”. Come on. I dare ya to intervene. Obviously Israel would be held indefinitely hostage. An eventuality I’m betting they will wisely not allow.
Maybe that’s Obama’s strategy? I can’t stand the guy, but I don’t believe he wants to see us, Israel or anybody else for that matter, fall to a nuclear conflagration. Maybe he thinks by continually calling for sanctions he can at least look like he’s doing something without being aggressive and then let Netanyahu do the heavy lifting. Everybody winds up happy (except Iran) and he doesn’t have to escalate the tension between us and Iran, further alienating his pacifist base.
Yes it will work, as evidenced by the huge war we never had with the Soviet Union.
Leaders in power want to keep power. You don’t keep power by attacking us. They all know this.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Yes it will work, as evidenced by the huge war we never had with the Soviet Union.
Leaders in power want to keep power. You don’t keep power by attacking us. They all know this. [/quote]
Well wadda relief. Here we were imagining all these differences between the soviets and Iran, but now you have put my mind at rest. There we have it boys n girls. Captain analysis has spoken. No huge war with the USSR so Iran can be deterred. Whew!
The problem here is that NOBODY understand what is going on inside Iran. And those who do cannot speak becasue AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is determined to paint Iran as evil as posible.
The real question is:
How should the US deal with Iran and its nuclean ambisions?
The answer is:
Fund, support, and encourage the POLITICAL OPPOSITION in Iran. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are in power because they unleashed the police, secret police, and the Revolutionary Guard/Basij militia on the people protesting the fixed election results in 2009. And they still keep their foot on the political opposition.
The majority of the population in Iran is under the age of 35. They DO NOT want to die for Khamenei or any other Ayatollah, like their fathers and uncles did in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988.
so nobody understands, those who do won’t talk about it, but you understand and will talk about it . . . 
It’s a good idea, but we don’t really have years here.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That’s a great point. If they wind up with a decent yield nuke and a delivery system what’s to stop them from ratcheting up everything else with one hand, with the finger of the other on “the button”. Come on. I dare ya to intervene.
[/quote]
I tend to agree with this. They might not give their terrorist allies nukes because it would be suicidal. Pakistan has nukes and so far they have not ended up in the Taliban’s hands.
They will use the nukes to black mail us against using force to stop the activities of their terrorist allies.
I believe if Iran has the bomb the terrorism they sponsor will skyrocket to levels never seen before.
If they do a test and set one off does anyone think Israel (for years denying they have nukes) will be forced to follow suit?
While I’m not going to argue that Iran is some peaceful country, I do understand why they would seek nukes; and actions taken by the US certainly are a big part of the reason that they do. We openly threaten Iran and punish the country with economic sanctions while we wage war with two countries that border its opposite sides. On top of that we support the shit out of Israel which happens to beef with Iran quite a bit.
You could argue otherwise but it seems logical that Iran wants nukes for self-defense, or more specifically to deter the many threats they face from attacking. I don’t think there’s anything we could do to deter them.
Having a nuke and doing something with it is a different story. It worked for decades for us and the Ruskies. It just brought up both nations to a level where they didn’t dare fuck with each other.
Does Iran have the technology to deploy one? Maybe, maybe not and how far would it get? Israel is close enough to strike with a moderately powerful warhead, or a lot of smaller ones does the trick as well. Who else would they target, outside of laying out a dirty-bomb somewhere?
I’d say that they’re just talking trash right now, they aren’t that desperate to “reach out and touch someone”.
BG
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Yes it will work, as evidenced by the huge war we never had with the Soviet Union.
Leaders in power want to keep power. You don’t keep power by attacking us. They all know this. [/quote]
Well wadda relief. Here we were imagining all these differences between the soviets and Iran, but now you have put my mind at rest. There we have it boys n girls. Captain analysis has spoken. No huge war with the USSR so Iran can be deterred. Whew! [/quote]
Listen man, it’s not any different then some scumbag looking to rob or kill you, or even fight you in a bar.
They’re not going to pick on the biggest, meanest looking motherfucker in the place, because the chances of them winning aren’t very good. They’re much more likely to go for what looks like an easy mark, who’s going to put up the least amount of fight, and they’ve stacked the deck in their favor and think they can win.
No one picks on the US and thinks they can win. We are the hardest of all marks, and if the Soviets, who were equal with us, didn’t want to bang out, nothing in the world makes me think Iran will.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Yes it will work, as evidenced by the huge war we never had with the Soviet Union.
Leaders in power want to keep power. You don’t keep power by attacking us. They all know this. [/quote]
Well wadda relief. Here we were imagining all these differences between the soviets and Iran, but now you have put my mind at rest. There we have it boys n girls. Captain analysis has spoken. No huge war with the USSR so Iran can be deterred. Whew! [/quote]
Listen man, it’s not any different then some scumbag looking to rob or kill you, or even fight you in a bar.
They’re not going to pick on the biggest, meanest looking motherfucker in the place, because the chances of them winning aren’t very good. They’re much more likely to go for what looks like an easy mark, who’s going to put up the least amount of fight, and they’ve stacked the deck in their favor and think they can win.
No one picks on the US and thinks they can win. We are the hardest of all marks, and if the Soviets, who were equal with us, didn’t want to bang out, nothing in the world makes me think Iran will.[/quote]
You really are not getting what’s goin on here. Nothing you’ve just said is applicable to somebody who believes God is telling them what to do. It’s makes no difference what YOU believe. To THEM the debate is over. They don’t care about winning or dying. They only care about obedience.
Only time will tell. They’re going to get the bomb, and then we’ll see.
I’m coming down the on the side of yes, they can be deterred from use.
Everyone has self-preservation in mind. A nuclear attack by Iran on anything, spells the end of Iran.
Iran wants nukes as a deterrent against the US, and more importantly Israel. I think I’m right in saying that we would not have invaded Iraq, had they had a nuke, and the ability to deliver it to Israel or even Kuwait. Iran’s crazy isn’t as stupid as we’d like to believe it is.
The heart of the question - as I state dearlier is not whether or not we can deter them form using their nuclear weapon, it is whether or not there nuclear weapon will embolden them in their other efforts of supporting terrorism and cause them to escalate their activities under the cover of the prospect of nuclear war - even the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates understands this reality when he stated that sanctions against Iran have not stopped their support (weapons, money and trainers) for terrorist activities when they did not have nuclear weapons, why should we be able to deter them from increeasing such activity when they do?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
The Obama administration has formally disclosed the size of the Defense Department�¢??s stockpile of nuclear weapons: 5,113 warheads as of September 30, 2009.
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/05/stockpilenumber.php
Is somebody crazy enough to think that this is not a deterrent. (except Irishsteel and Pushharder, of course)[/quote]
Since I feel I owe you one non sarcastic post after misrepresenting one of yours I’ll explain. There is no such thing as a deterrent to someone who’s god is telling them to blow you up. That’s the best I can do and were even now.[/quote]
BINGO.
Mutually Assured Destruction worked with the Soviets because they love their children.
Fanatical muslims strap explosives on their children.
President ImaNutJob from Iran wants to bring about the 12 iman and the end of the world. He has publically stated his intent to do so, and is working toward the ability to pull it off.
Amazingly, the only people who don’t take ImaNutJob seriously also think that Sarah Palin wants to cause the end of the world to bring back Jesus, despite the fact that is inconsistent with her theology, despite the fact she has never said anything remotely of the kind, and despite the fact she clearly loves her kids, as flawed and messed up as they are.
I truly think liberalism is a mental disease.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The point of deterrence is not so much a question of whether or not they will use the nuclear device in combat scenarios, but whether or not their many other activities in support of terrorist organization will be increased and emboldened by their possession of the ultimate threat. It is that particualr vein of reasoning that we must be alert to and prepared for.
What’s to prevent them from sending more advanced weapons to Hamas or Hezbollah or the Taliban to escalate their wars if they have the fall-back protection of nuclear firepower. How do we deter an increase in these types of activities given their current proclivities for suporting these organizations and fomenting unrest WITHOUT nukes once they do actually possess them?[/quote]
That’s a great point. If they wind up with a decent yield nuke and a delivery system what’s to stop them from ratcheting up everything else with one hand, with the finger of the other on “the button”. Come on. I dare ya to intervene. Obviously Israel would be held indefinitely hostage. An eventuality I’m betting they will wisely not allow.
Maybe that’s Obama’s strategy? I can’t stand the guy, but I don’t believe he wants to see us, Israel or anybody else for that matter, fall to a nuclear conflagration. Maybe he thinks by continually calling for sanctions he can at least look like he’s doing something without being aggressive and then let Netanyahu do the heavy lifting. Everybody winds up happy (except Iran) and he doesn’t have to escalate the tension between us and Iran, further alienating his pacifist base.[/quote]
I’m nothing but shocked.
I was under the impression you thought Barack Obama was on a mission to destroy the United States, and was not afraid of offending/alienating anybody, from his political base to the entire american people, in order to realize that dream.
[quote]Neospartan wrote:
The problem here is that NOBODY understand what is going on inside Iran. And those who do cannot speak becasue AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is determined to paint Iran as evil as posible.
The real question is:
How should the US deal with Iran and its nuclean ambisions?
The answer is:
Fund, support, and encourage the POLITICAL OPPOSITION in Iran. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are in power because they unleashed the police, secret police, and the Revolutionary Guard/Basij militia on the people protesting the fixed election results in 2009. And they still keep their foot on the political opposition.
The majority of the population in Iran is under the age of 35. They DO NOT want to die for Khamenei or any other Ayatollah, like their fathers and uncles did in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988.
[/quote]
In theory, I agree with you.
In practice, the last time America supported an Iranian regime, they savagely threw him out, took the American embassy hostage, and re-started a bloody and shameful religious pogram that continues to this day. All with the popular support of the parents of the martyrs of the green revolution.
America should leave the Iranian citizens to lay in the bed they made in 1979.
I think mutally assured destruction will work in an Iran Vs. America situation.
Khomeini’s regime has proven itself subject to international scrutiny (and by scrutiny, I mean ‘shame’). The hand of brutality has been stayed by international pressure in the enforcement of many of Iran’s more brutal laws and harsh pogram as a result of being covered in the international press. That tells me that the administration cares about its international appearance. Which means its leaders care about more than God.
I think Ahmadinejead’s about as fervent in his belief as Bush II. If God told Bush to bomb Cuba, I think he’d check with Cheney before doing it.
This does not bear on an Iran vs. Israel situation.