GLORIOUS SPARTAN: Prelude of upcoming events in the Gulf ?

[Chrom]

But you need thousands upon thousands of warheads to achieve MAD to be destructive and reliable enough. Less than a few hundred is limited deterrence. Limited deterrence ultimately doesn't deter MAD capable powers as the power with limited deterrence is deterred by total annihilation as opposed to holding a few targets at risk.

But that bring stakes high enough so in absolutely most cases it doesnt worth to directly attack said country. Take, for example, Iran or NK.

I dont think IRANIAN oil is important enough for USA to actually risk New-York or Los-Angeles. Iranian have all right to do anything with they oil, same as USA have all rights to do anything with USA oil or USA microchips - which is current world are even more important than oil.

I also dont think USA hate toward word "communism" (because, lets face it, NK is not communistic by any mean) are high enough to risk Detroit or Tokyo. And if USA try it - they will get a nice diplomatic storm from Japan or SK.

 

[Grand Danois]

But that bring stakes high enough so in absolutely most cases it doesnt worth to directly attack said country. Take, for example, Iran or NK.

I dont think IRANIAN oil is important enough for USA to actually risk New-York or Los-Angeles. Iranian have all right to do anything with they oil, same as USA have all rights to do anything with USA oil or USA microchips - which is current world are even more important than oil.

I also dont think USA hate toward word "communism" (because, lets face it, NK is not communistic by any mean) are high enough to risk Detroit or Tokyo. And if USA try it - they will get a nice diplomatic storm from Japan or SK.

It's not about what the US is risking - it's about what Iran or NK risks.

Assume Iran is armed with a handful of nukes plus delivery systems. US drops a nuke on some facility and lets Iran know that if it responds in kind, it will face end-to-end annihilation.

What will Iran do?

They're deterred, because if they act in kind, they can't escalate.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Hmm? I mean, WHAT rules ALL nuclear nations commonly agree to follow, and which of these rules Iran DONT want to follow? Please, explain it!

Chrom,

It's called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which Iran agreed to and got caught violating. You should read about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

Iran has legally agreed to follow these rules. Also, I did not say all nuclear nations. I said core nations.

-DA

 

[Chrom]

Chrom,

It's called the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which Iran agreed to and got caught violating. You should read about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

Iran has legally agreed to follow these rules. Also, I did not say all nuclear nations. I said core nations.

-DA

1. As with any agreement, Iran have all rights to EXIT or change its stats within treaty. Iran may change own status within treaty as nuclear-weapon user in the future - and this will be very legal move. IF Iran actually sometime decide to develop nuclear weapon of course...

2. This treatment DO NOT prohibit independently acquire nuclear weapon. It is however illegal to transfer technology.
Plus, any country which forfeit nuclear weapon development theoretically enjoys (however useless) invulnerability against nuclear weapon use of other nuclear powers.
But even that last and most useless point was openly compromised by both Russia and USA in they military doctrines, where they reserve to employ nuclear weapon even first and even against non-nuclear countries "if they threat national interests".

3. Even by most strictest interpretations, Iran still have all rights to build nuclear reactor and enrich uran or plutonium for it.

4. Other nuclear powers have a-bomb. Iran also have all rights to do it. Note, this will be possible bad for national interests of Russia and USA. Hell, probably for the rest of the world also. But all what really matters in current world - only own national interests. Other countries, however democratic or tyrannic , clearly and constant show it.

This is the same concept as with individual human rights for person.

 

[chris]

Well, this is the core of the problem in my humble opinion. A simple "what if"

Also, nuclear weapons cause damage far out of proportion with conventional weapons of similar size. In 1991 Iraq launched over 80 SCUDs and about 38 of those at Israel. Of those 38 many landed near enough to populated areas that if they carried nuclear warheads Israeli would have been destroyed as we know it today. SCUDs landed near enough to US military facilities in the Persian Gulf that with nuclear payloads Operation Desert Storm would have been seriously disrupted. This disruption would have given time for the Iraqis to exploit. Granted the US and France probably would have obliterated Iraq in retaliation, the resulting economic and ecological damage would have had the kinds of global consequences I mentioned before. MAD only works when both sides buy into it. If not you still get the destruction no matter what you do in return.

What if Saddam had nuclear weapons back then? Is there a possibility that we would have an Operation Desert Storm? We would probably ended up in UN talking sanctions. Well, this is what everybody out of the norm seeks. We put "rogue" states in the corner and ask them to bow or perish. We ask a political elite either to bow and die in civil flames (leading maybe to something worse) or try the only way out. If Iran seeks nukes, is to protect itself (the ruling elite) from west aggression.

There are better ways. Target the elite. There are lots of peaceful ways to do so. If they are out of touch with their people then you will win. Unless you believe that every Iranian is a suicidal fanatic.

 

[Grand Danois]

....(leading maybe to something worse) or try the only way out. If Iran seeks nukes, is to protect itself (the ruling elite) from west aggression...

No. Iran - or rather elements of the Iranian ruling class - seek nukes in order to gain regional prestige and regional hegemonic reasons. Deterring the evil, aggresive West is way down the list: they deter little and invite aggression.

 

[chris]

No. Iran - or rather elements of the Iranian ruling class - seek nukes in order to gain regional prestige and regional hegemonic reasons. Deterring the evil, aggresive West is way down the list: they deter little and invite aggression.

I fail to see anything more than an opinion. I respect it but it is just your opinion. As is mine... I'm maybe wrong but so are you.

 

[Grand Danois]

I fail to see anything more than an opinion. I respect it but it is just your opinion. As is mine... I'm maybe wrong but so are you.

You think this is opinion?

Iran is playing the long game, as they always do.

 

[chris]

You think this is opinion?

Iran is playing the long game, as they always do.

Isn't about time that the west must learn to play the long game as well? The short game seems to lead to one disaster after another

 

[Chrom]

Well, this is the core of the problem in my humble opinion. A simple "what if"



What if Saddam had nuclear weapons back then? Is there a possibility that we would have an Operation Desert Storm? We would probably ended up in UN talking sanctions. Well, this is what everybody out of the norm seeks. We put "rogue" states in the corner and ask them to bow or perish. We ask a political elite either to bow and die in civil flames (leading maybe to something worse) or try the only way out. If Iran seeks nukes, is to protect itself (the ruling elite) from west aggression.

There are better ways. Target the elite. There are lots of peaceful ways to do so. If they are out of touch with their people then you will win. Unless you believe that every Iranian is a suicidal fanatic.

"Target the elite" you says? Is it not that a terrorists way? Is this any different from some Al-Kaeda guys blowing up USA elite in 9/11, or sending off disease briefs to White Haus?

 

[chris]

"Target the elite" you says? Is it not that a terrorists way? Is this any different from some Al-Kaeda guys blowing up USA elite in 9/11, or sending off disease briefs to White Haus?

There are lots of peaceful ways to do so.

Ohh, I'm going to bed. Goodnight people

 

[Chrom]

Isn't about time that the west must learn to play the long game as well? The short game seems to lead to one disaster after another

Exactly. World progress, and so the means to destruct it. 50 years ago only 2 countries could realistically damage the world. 30 years ago 2 countries could destroy it, and another 5 - damage. Now there are probably 3-4 more of them, and another 10-15 can get such capability withing several years at most if they wish.

In another 50 years just about every half-decent country will have similar nuclear (or comparable to nuclear) capability with current GB or China. I think, we should learn to live in multi polar world, build under rule of international law - the SAME law for everyone, NOT the rule of strongest.

We should slowly let the steam out, and not further restrict the rights of weaker countries. This will only lead to explosion - sooner or later.

 

[Grand Danois]

Isn't about time that the west must learn to play the long game as well? The short game seems to lead to one disaster after another

That's right. I just don't agree that any move done by Iran is "because the West gave Iran no other choice." They have their own agendas and must acknowledge responsibility for own actions.

 

[DarthAmerica]

That's right. I just don't agree that any move done by Iran is "because the West gave Iran no other choice." They have their own agendas and must acknowledge responsibility for own actions.

They are gambling that they can go nuclear regardless of our actions, bombing or sanctions and then be in a position where regime survivability is assured through nuclear blackmail. Following that they will seek to dominate the Gulf. They don't expect any attempts to actually invade and occupy. They probably don't expect preemptive nuclear strike and they are confident their program would survive any limited bombing campaign. There is extreme danger here and I see some of it personally. I really hope Dr. Rice can solve this rather than SecDef Gates.

-DA

 

[kato]

"Target the elite" you says? Is it not that a terrorists way? Is this any different from some Al-Kaeda guys blowing up USA elite in 9/11, or sending off disease briefs to White Haus?

"Terrorism" is always a relative term. The White House (and, for 9/11, the Pentagon) are - without much room to argue - legitimate military targets. Saddam's palaces were legitimate targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets.

 

[Feanor]

Because the Iranians are not a part of the core nations who have all agreed to generally follow common sets of rules. The Iranians also have a very negative history with the Russians. That's on top of the fact that the Iranian government is not stable.

It's the same as giving a gun to a person pre-desposed to violent crime and drug use compared to a normal law abiding citizen. Denying this would be naive.

What you mean like Pakistan or North Korea? Oh wait........ Come on. We have a very clear precedent here. The DPRK's nuclear program. They're part of the club. But we have yet to see Seoul go up in a lake of fire. It's not likely that Iran will go on a nuclear offensive, and the idea of Iranian instability is in my opinion unfounded. If we trust Pakistan with nukes, and they have an active insurgency in the country, we can trust Iran with a handful of ancient a-bombs.

The problem with not wanting potential enemies on your borders is that to move them further away means extending your borders. Then you find a new potential enemy on the new border . . . Where to stop?

BTW, St. Petersburg was built where it is because it was near other countries. It was meant as a channel to the West, to open up Russia. You can't complain because that particular city is near the people it was built to be near to.

It wasn't when we owned Finland and Poland. And the rest of Eastern Europe. Which is what this is really all about. The problem with NATO bases is that those areas are practically irrecoverable to Russian influence. Hence why the tooth and claw fight over every country and every base.

Well, this is the core of the problem in my humble opinion. A simple "what if"

What if Saddam had nuclear weapons back then? Is there a possibility that we would have an Operation Desert Storm? We would probably ended up in UN talking sanctions. Well, this is what everybody out of the norm seeks. We put "rogue" states in the corner and ask them to bow or perish. We ask a political elite either to bow and die in civil flames (leading maybe to something worse) or try the only way out. If Iran seeks nukes, is to protect itself (the ruling elite) from west aggression.

There are better ways. Target the elite. There are lots of peaceful ways to do so. If they are out of touch with their people then you will win. Unless you believe that every Iranian is a suicidal fanatic.

Absolutely correct. The reason that "rogue" (translation: anti-American) states want nukes is to make sure that ODS doesn't happen to them. A perfectly legitimate concern in my mind.

 

[swerve]

...
It wasn't when we owned Finland and Poland. And the rest of Eastern Europe. Which is what this is really all about. The problem with NATO bases is that those areas are practically irrecoverable to Russian influence. Hence why the tooth and claw fight over every country and every base.
....

When St. Petersburg was built, Finland, Estonia & Latvia were still Swedish. Finland remained so for the next 100 years, & it was several years before Estonia & Latvia would be seized from Sweden. Poland was independent, owned Lithuania & parts of Latvia, & would remain so for almost a century. It was, quite deliberately, built near the western borders.

Those areas are irrecoverable to Russian influence because of current & past Russian behaviour. Treat them differently & they might, in time, begin to feel differently about Russia. But it'll take a long time, & at the moment, Russian behaviour is convincing them that turning to the West was the right decision. Remember the cyber-offensive against Estonia? A good way to convince them to snuggle further under NATOs wing.

Oh dear. I've succumbed to the politics urge. I won't pursue this further.

 

[not_so_sis]

The current worldwide nuclear deadlock really means developing nuclear powers may perhaps be very inconvennient in many forms but, not particulary that threatening.
Nuclear deterrance is applied under the basis that no one could acheive first strike capabilites upon the countries in question, however this is not restricted to the actual countries via the means of submarines driving around without their lights on in the murky depths of the world oceans.
It will take a country like Iran many years to catch up with USA and Co and Russia, of which I see the strongest concerns between.
The current build up of tension between Russia and USA & Co has forged a new cold war. However with the current picture still being reliant upon the fact no country could acheive a nuclear strike that could take out all opositions nuclear facilities, nuclear war is out of the question, however tanking arund the middle east is more realistic (and making new friends) , beyond the disaster talk, there are real problems in the middle east which the west is doing some good, all be it at a cost of allied forces life's.
so what I am saying with all this really is, it comes down to the strategic applications and lets face it, it is by no coincidence that america is the super power it is, it is only through history that they have built it upon proving themselves in the battlefields and political expertise and yeah albeit it with help, oh and the same goes to russia!!

 

[stigmata]

Chrom
I share your view of international law and equal rights for each country, or at least i did at the beginning of this thread.
But there is a catch: A Theocratic mullacracy with God as employer may well interpret His will as to stop the flow of oil, the very engine of civilization. They are well aware He will revard them soon after.
That would be a world wide disaster, and how fair is that ?
I for one start to wonder how many would die in starvation and riots, and try to compare with how many will die by repeated US air strikes against Iran.
I think Bush believe he is on a holy mission too, but at least in his case, there is voters, congress, and if need be, psychic hospital, to prevent nukes.
I just dont trust fanatics.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What you mean like Pakistan or North Korea? Oh wait........ Come on. We have a very clear precedent here. The DPRK's nuclear program. They're part of the club. But we have yet to see Seoul go up in a lake of fire. It's not likely that Iran will go on a nuclear offensive, and the idea of Iranian instability is in my opinion unfounded. If we trust Pakistan with nukes, and they have an active insurgency in the country, we can trust Iran with a handful of ancient a-bombs.

Nk & Pak are bad examples. I'm pretty sure the Koreans are a fair way away from a deliverable warhead. The only test they have conducted produced a significant sub-yield (sub kiloton) detonation. Therefore even if they wanted to, i doubt they could burn Seoul in a lake of nuclear fire, they could however raise the city with conventional arms.

Pakistan is held in check by India and AFAIK its delivery systems are not capable of reaching other major powers (apart from PROC, their ally).

Neither of them have any real opportunity (or motive in Pakistan's case) to use said nuclear arms to aggressively dominate their respective geographical area. Iran does.

Absolutely correct. The reason that "rogue" (translation: anti-American) states want nukes is to make sure that ODS doesn't happen to them. A perfectly legitimate concern in my mind.

For the most part i disagree with this statement. In order to be an effective deterrent vs the US/West you don't just need to build a few nukes. You need redundant delivery systems capable of reaching the west. Achieving that goal is arguably comparable to building a nuke in the first place. Even powers the like of India have not achieved that (not that they feel the need), so i seriously doubt Iran will in any reasonable time frame.

Therefore the motive is most likely regional hegemony in Iran's case. Look at what nuclear arms did for Israel's security...