Blueprint for Failure: On Mismatched Strategies and Objectives

[AAAintheBeltway]

Pekelo,

Using your logic, it is wrong to have any limitations on say, firearms. If the police can have them, why not criminals?

Iran has publicly threatened to destroy Israel and other countries. Its leader apparently believes nuclear war will lead to the return of the 12th Iman or some such Muslim end time. I think most people can see the difference in Iran having nukes and say, Great Britain.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from Pekelo:

An internationale agreement like the NPT would be moral and effective if:

The NPT is an international treaty that Iran voluntarily signed, it's a legally binding contract that has nothing to do with "morality" you're talking about. If they consider it immoral they did not have to sign it and btw they have every right to withdraw from the treaty but of course they realize that there will be repercussions.

What you're basically saying is that you personally disagree with the NPT and therefore signatory states should be allowed to ignore their NPT responsibilities. Sorry but that's silly.

 

[Pekelo]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Pekelo,
Using your logic,

There is no really my kind of logic. There is only one kind, the common sense-kind...


it is wrong to have any limitations on say, firearms. If the police can have them, why not criminals?

Well, as usual, wrong analogy. There is a "slight" difference between taking out a few people and taking out humankind, specially when "people" with the biggest "firearms" are the most likely to use it.

Although firearms is a different topic, I don't have a problem with letting as many people using them as possible, provided that people who showed history of missuse can not have them.

It is like a driving licence, as long as you passed the test and obey the rules of the road, you should be able to have one.


Iran has publicly threatened to destroy Israel and other countries.

How many leaders of a country do you want me to quote, who threatened somebody else? Here is one:

"The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states".

or another one:

" In January 2006, Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers."

Now I agree, these were non-specific threats, nevertheless they were indicating the willingness of the use of nukes.


I think most people can see the difference in Iran having nukes and say, Great Britain.

Apparently not, see the quote above....

 

[Pekelo]

Quote from dddooo:

....and btw they have every right to withdraw from the treaty but of course they realize that there will be repercussions.

Would you consider our marriage licence legally bonding if I was holding a gun to your head when you signed the papers? Not to mention that I am threatening you with all kind of legal actions if you consider divorce???

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Pekelo:

I must have missed the memo, so could you tell me again:

What gives you the legal/moral right to take out ANYBODY's nuclear weapons???

In other words, if country A has the right to have nukes, why country B has not???

If you re-read my post, you will see that this question was speculative. I was anticipating the objections that might be voiced by those on the right. I said that I was struggling with the whole concept of preemptive war.

However... if a country is developing nuclear weapons, and goes on record as saying that its goal is the destruction of a neighbour, then does not the international community have the right, or maybe even the duty, to make sure that the rogue nation cannot carry out its plans?

You can take the nukes out of the equation and ask the same question about a country that is massing its troops on the border of another country after explicitly stating that their aim is to attack and destroy that country.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So if a nation thumbs their nose at the international community, the way the US did when it invaded Iraq, does that make the US a rogue nation?

How about when Israel ignores all UN resolutions and does what they want anyway...does that make them a rogue nation?

Quote from traderNik:

If you re-read my post, you will see that this question was speculative. I was anticipating the objections that might be voiced by those on the right. I said that I was struggling with the whole concept of preemptive war.

However... if a country is developing nuclear weapons, and goes on record as saying that its goal is the destruction of a neighbour, then does not the international community have the right, or maybe even the duty, to make sure that the rogue nation cannot carry out its plans?

You can take the nukes out of the equation and ask the same question about a country that is massing its troops on the border of another country after explicitly stating that their aim is to attack and destroy that country.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from riserburn:
What makes you think Iran will actually use them?

Therein lies the hypocrisy of American foreign policy.

Hi riserburn

This is a long discussion, but here's the deal. When the Berlin Wall fell, I watched it on TV and I thought to myself "Well, that's it! There will likely never be another global conflict" (clearly, now, a naive idea).

Then came 9-11, and IMO, all bets are off. What makes me think Iran would use a nuke? Well, I saw what another group of Muslim maniacs did on 9-11. If they are capable of actually carrying out that kind of attack out, are you telling me that you cannot imagine, in your wildest dreams, another Muslim fanatic with access to a nuke delivering it into the heart of Jerusalem or Manhattan?

Re: the hypocrisy of US foreign policy... as I have made clear here, I am no great fan of US foreign policy. However, I do recognize the difference between the need for military assets in defense of the country and otherwise. Now, you might turn my argument around and ask, 'If the U.S. is capable of attacking a sovereign nation like Iraq without crystal clear evidence of an imminent threat to U.S. sovereignity, do you seriously think that they would not be capable of using a tactical nuke in a preemptive strike at a country like Iran if they thought it was in their best interest'?

I don't deny the relevance of such a question. My gut feeling is that they wouldn't use a nuke unless another nation formally declared war on them.

 

[Pabst]

Quote from traderNik:

Hi riserburn

This is a long discussion, but here's the deal. When the Berlin Wall fell, I watched it on TV and I thought to myself "Well, that's it! There will likely never be another global conflict" (clearly, now, a naive idea).

Then came 9-11, and IMO, all bets are off. What makes me think Iran would use a nuke? Well, I saw what another group of Muslim maniacs did on 9-11. If they are capable of actually carrying out that kind of attack out, are you telling me that you cannot imagine, in your wildest dreams, another Muslim fanatic with access to a nuke delivering it into the heart of Jerusalem or Manhattan?

Re: the hypocrisy of US foreign policy... as I have made clear here, I am no great fan of US foreign policy. However, I do recognize the difference between the need for military assets in defense of the country and otherwise. Now, you might turn my argument around and ask, 'If the U.S. is capable of attacking a sovereign nation like Iraq without crystal clear evidence of an imminent threat to U.S. sovereignity, do you seriously think that they would not be capable of using a tactical nuke in a preemptive strike at a country like Iran if they thought it was in their best interest'?

I don't deny the relevance of such a question. My gut feeling is that they wouldn't use a nuke unless another nation formally declared war on them.

IMO you're making morally and intellectually valid points throughout this thread. I'm agnostic on America's invasion of Iraq (I see all sides of the argument) but I think it's clear that rather than being a war against Iraq it's really a police action against Saddam and the Bathists. Sort of like if we "removed" Castro we'd certainly not bomb Havana into "submission." A big step forward from the days of Hitler blitzing London and the U.S. destroying Dresden.

Iran, as expressed through the mullah's, has demonstrated they are a better funded, more ideological version of Libya. I don't fear a nuclear Iran bombing Tel Aviv. I do fear however a nuclear Iran (or a future Pakistan) exporting nukes to some rebel Islamic regime that's trying to overtake a secular democracy in Africa or Asia. Zealots particularly religiously motivated will use any tool in their arsenal. There's no upside in the global community of secular nations to seeing Iran with nukes. There's CLEARLY a hell of a downside......

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Pabst:
I do fear however a nuclear Iran (or a future Pakistan) exporting nukes to some rebel Islamic regime that's trying to overtake a secular democracy in Africa or Asia.

Yes, and 9-11, London, Spain, Bali, Nairobi et. al undermine the arguments from the left about the illegality or immorality of preemptive strikes. The left objects to actions on the part of the U.S. that would only be acceptable had war been declared on them by another sovereign nation. Has war been declared on America? Well, not in the old way, but...

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from traderNik:

Yes, and 9-11, London, Spain, Bali, Nairobi et. al undermine the arguments from the left about the illegality or immorality of preemptive strikes. The left objects to actions on the part of the U.S. that would only be acceptable had war been declared on them by another sovereign nation. Has war been declared on America? Well, not in the old way, but...

Preemptive war is not something to be taken lightly. For one thing, it contradicts one of the democratic west's strongest moral arguments, namely that we do not start wars. On the other hand, when irrational enemies begin to develop WMD, it could be suicidal to wait for an attack.

I think that is one benefit to distinguishing the grade of conflict, as I tried to do in the opening post. A Type I or even Type II can be justified more easily than a Type III. Unfortunately, the more an potential aggressor tries to hide its WMD, as Iran is apparently doing, the higher the level of conflict necessary to disarm them.

With Iran (and North Korea), a "surgical" strike aimed at their WMD facilities will be wholly inadequate. Iran has dispersed its facilities and buried them underground, so we could never be confident of complete destruction. More ominously, they would likely retaliate by attempting to close the Straits of Hormuz and attacking tankers. Thus, any attack against their WMD assets would of necessity require a comprehensive destruction of all their naval and air assets. This fact must figure prominently in considering the likelihood of a unilateral Israeli attack. They might be able to take out the main nuclear facilities, but I doubt they have the capacity using conventional weapons to take out all Iran's naval and air assets.

Similar calculations apply to North Korea, which has enormous quantities of long range artillery aimed at Seoul.