View Full Version : US Iran and world diplomacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY_utC-hrjI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fpolitik%2Fausla nd%2F0%2C1518%2C614642%2C00.html&feature=player_embedded
May I say, this was the coolest and smartest move I have seen by the US for decades? The POTUS certainly studied history, Kennedys speech in Berlin a prime example how to win hearts, then also made the effort to go into Iranian culture.
By what I read about reactions in iranian blogs, folks there are absolutely jubilant about this gesture and diss their own regime. No idea how selectivly these comments were put together and if there are as many negative responses, but I will just trust our press in this.
This fits perfectly into the picture of how the cold wars end and the collaps of the iron curtain was put into motion by Willy Brandts Ostpolitik. Ppl eventually get tired of the constant pressure of beeing threatend with war. In this everybody is the same, no matter where from. It just takes somebody to do the first step, and make the cardhouse set up by authrocratic regimes for their own populations of outside threats and evil fall together.
As a side effect, and I can say that myself, the US gained darn lot of respect within a 5 minute effort, just by the very words alone.
Well done guys!
Sea Demon
03-20-09, 06:40 PM
The message was nice. Perhaps the ordinary people there got a warm fuzzy from it. But I'm not sure the President truly understands the nature of their leadership and their goals. Especially where it pertains to overall regional security. The Iranian leadership continually calls for the destruction of Israel. They directly fund terrorists in both Gaza and Lebanon, and provide material support for operations. To me, the Iranian leadership view this message as weakness. Heck, their president (most likely with approval from their supreme leader) said a few weeks back that he directly sees these overtures as empty gestures and weakness, and proof of American decline. And that their nuclear desires would proceed in earnest. In this context, I see Obama as naive. Nothing more.
Tribesman
03-20-09, 07:00 PM
Especially where it pertains to overall regional security.
It could be worse , the previous administration took out two of Irans regional enemies and then installed Iranian allies in the place of one of them .
I doubt Obama even at his most naive would repeat that sort of mistake .
Heck, their president (most likely with approval from their supreme leader) said a few weeks back that he directly sees these overtures as empty gestures and weakness, and proof of American decline.
Well the weakness and decline are clearly evident , as for saying about the empty gestures that was when the vote on sanctions was passed again .
Sea Demon
03-20-09, 07:12 PM
It could be worse , the previous administration took out two of Irans regional enemies and then installed Iranian allies in the place of one of them .
I doubt Obama even at his most naive would repeat that sort of mistake .
Well the weakness and decline are clearly evident , as for saying about the empty gestures that was when the vote on sanctions was passed again .
Perhaps you never read the Iraq war resolution and the ceasefire agreements from the first Gulf War? Anyway the war to remove Saddam and the danger he presented, and his non-compliance with the ceasefire are irrelevant in anyway to Iran or the argument. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Obama certainly doesn't understand who these people he's dealing with are all about. He is naive. The current Iraqi government is not a threat to the region, nor are they under control from Tehran. The previous administration approached these people correctly. Obama is trying to sweet talk people who provide material aid to terrorist groups who directly target Israeli civilians. They directly supply murderers. Under the mindset of people like Obama, Saddam would still be in power and who knows exactly what that would mean currently to regional security? Now Iran may be attempting to build a nuclear weapons capability. No sweet talk will change that.
In terms of "weakness and decline", that is pure rhetoric from people like Iran's Ayatollah that you believe wholesale. From where I sit, looks like the whole world is in the same basket...not just the USA alone.
Tribesman
03-20-09, 07:51 PM
The current Iraqi government is not a threat to the region, nor are they under control from Tehran.
What ??????
Who are you trying to fool ?
The current government ? thats led by Maliki isn't it , Maliki of the Dawa party that supported the Iranian revoloution and was great friends with the ayatollahs , the same Maliki who when he wasn't in Iran working with the Iranians was in Syria working with the hezballah leaders .
Still I suppose the biggest party in the government doesn't really mean much , so the second biggest ,the Iranian based Iranian funded Iranian armed and Iranian trained Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution , yeah they may be from Tehran but they certainly ain't under the control of Tehran :doh:
In terms of "weakness and decline", that is pure rhetoric from people like Iran's Ayatollah that you believe wholesale.
No the weakness and decline is down to the fact that the US cannot do much at all militarily against Iran , could not afford the economic impact of any miltary action and is limited to sanctions which obviously havn't worked .
When a country is stuck in that position its only option left is dialogue .
As for Iran supporting and supplying terrorists , so what ? If America didn't do the same then perhaps it could play that card, but as it does its a case of the pot calling the kettle black
Gotta admit, pretty impressed myself. The question of course remains as to how such overtures will be received in Tehran.
I can also see and hear the howls of indignation from certain corners of Washington, but, that was not too shabby at all as speeches go, and credit to Obama, he has the charisma to pull it off...and he didn't even mention the special olympics :03:
Of course, you can only go so far on charisma. What is he on now...Day 58 or something, heh, never before in the history of the United States has a presidents first one hundred days been scrutinised by the world as keenly as Obamas is. :har:
I'm still a bit on the fence regarding Obama, having heard pro and anti arguements on him. Still, he'll get his make or break moment at some point I'm sure, the economy is a slow moving make or break with little real immediate results, George W Bush's make or break moment was 9/11 and the War on Terrorism that followed, Clintons was Ireland and the Kosovo wars, not to mention of course, Madam Monica :har: and George Bush Snr was, of course, Gulf War Parte the first.
Obama has potential, in my opinion, but then again, many things have potential, so while this speech goes a fair bit to improve my image of him, he's not at the top just yet. :yeah:
Max2147
03-20-09, 08:05 PM
As I said in the other thread on this topic (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=149578) this is all about the upcoming Iranian presidential elections.
On June 12 Ahmadinejad is up for re-election. This isn't a Saddam Hussein style election, there's a legitimate chance that Ahmadinejad could lose, especially if the reformists get their act together. It goes without saying that a reformist victory would mean a much better dialogue partner on nuclear issues. It would also be a huge diplomatic victory for Obama.
A lot of Iranains don't like their country's isolation from the world. Before, Ahmadinejad could simply blame it on America. Now Obama's making it clear that Iran's isolation can end if Iran wants it to. Ahmadinejad's rejection of the overtures sends a clear message to the Iranain electorate that he's not the guy who can bring Iran back in to the world community. Hopefully the reformists will make good use of this gift that Obama is giving them.
Guys, listen to yourselves. This is not about the iranian government or how they percieve it. It is about the iranian people and their reaction over it.
From what I read so far, the iranian government did not broadcast Obamas long, thanks to the internet, and from what iranian blogs had to tell.
A message like this can't be good for the iranian government. Just like Bush made an enemy and a conspiracy of evil out of everything not fitting his world view, so does the iranian government to their people. Now the evil great Satan, leader of a barbaric tribe of western savages, murdering their brothers and sisters in nearby Iraq and Afghanistan, bound to destroy Islam, sends them a message of peace and humanity and respect on their holiday.
Think reality check for these people. And the trouble that may cause to the iranian government. After all, other countries inhabitants are as diverse and opinionated as in any country out there, no matter if they can do it in the open or have to whisper in the hiding. And especially authocratic countries have a habit of beeing underestimated opposite the monoloithic block they are mostly percieved as. Last but not least, no population, anywhere in the world, likes to be the enemy #1 of the most powerful nation on earth, no matter how their governments drive their power politics. Unluckily some populations have no choice, voting away their leaders is no option. But when all of suddenn the common enemy falls away and respectfully asks of peace...then where does the government the domestic tensions, always a problem within authocratic regimes that can't simply fall back to mass killings of it's own population.
It was a very smart move indeed, stabbing the iranian government right through it's back door, it's population.
Sea Demon
03-20-09, 08:18 PM
What ??????
Who are you trying to fool ?
The current government ? thats led by Maliki isn't it , Maliki of the Dawa party that supported the Iranian revoloution and was great friends with the ayatollahs , the same Maliki who when he wasn't in Iran working with the Iranians was in Syria working with the hezballah leaders .
Still I suppose the biggest party in the government doesn't really mean much , so the second biggest ,the Iranian based Iranian funded Iranian armed and Iranian trained Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution , yeah they may be from Tehran but they certainly ain't under the control of Tehran :doh:
This reads like a Wiki article. So Maliki is under Iranian government control because he used contacts within them to try and depose Saddam when he was a dissident himself? His past is no secret. He has had some relatively bad contacts for sure. But in the real world, he has angered some in Iran for his willingness to work with the USA on joint security in the region.....some aspects of it that are at complete odds to Iranian government ambitions. It has made some in the USA and allied nations concerned because Maliki has made references to Iran as friends. And so he should be watched. I believe we have been successfully doing just that. But to say that Maliki is controleld from Iran, or that Iraq currently presents an even graver threat to regional security than Saddam's government clearly is bassackwards
No the weakness and decline is down to the fact that the US cannot do much at all militarily against Iran , could not afford the economic impact of any miltary action and is limited to sanctions which obviously havn't worked .
When a country is stuck in that position its only option left is dialogue .
As for Iran supporting and supplying terrorists , so what ? If America didn't do the same then perhaps it could play that card, but as it does its a case of the pot calling the kettle black
Sure we can. We have the military infrastructure, and are more than capable of conducting a sustained bombing camaign against Iran if need be. Hell, we have non-military unfunded liabilities that are going out generations. A sustained 30 day bombing campaing is a drop in the bucket financially. Perhaps you mean the disruption to the flow of oil resources. If that is the case, you may have a point. Dialogue is certainly useful in some circumstances, but one must never rule out the miltary option.
As for Iran supporting and supplying terrorists who directly target civilians, I find your views rather troublesome. The USA does not support terrorist organizations who's stated goals are to target civilians to effect their desires. We may have supplied some bad people in the past to ward off Soviet aggression (national security objectives), or other geostrategic factors. But no, we have never directly supported terrorist organizations whose purpose it is to "wipe off the map" a nation of people. Like Iran. Your flawed comparison is an insult. And grossly innaccurate.
Sea Demon
03-20-09, 08:29 PM
Guys, listen to yourselves. This is not about the iranian government or how they percieve it. It is about the iranian people and their reaction over it.
Well, in that regards I already said it was a nice gesture. However he clearly was speaking with the leaders as well. Nothing will come of it productive or non-productive. Obama has not exactly been promoting a regime change in the form of a local uprising. Nor does he seem poised to actually confront Iran if they indeed do pursue a nuclear weapons program or continue funding terror groups. In that way, this is really a silly outreach that will accomplish nothing of value to the USA and our taxpayers.
What worries me is it shows Obama doesn't understand the mindset of the leadership there who are not going to stop supplying terrorist groups because he's speaking nicely to them. Indeed, this type of thing does nothing to deter any of that activity. Past administrations including the last 2 have spoken to the Iranian people, and their terrorist sponsoring governments as a seperate matter. This is where Obama goes wrong here. He is ultimately too naive to understand any of it because he has a worldview that tells him otherwise. Of course history as a guide will show his worldview is flawed and unworkable.
The Iranian people are not the problem. I never had any trouble with any of them. They are decent people. And they are proof that it's not the religion which is the problem, but the mindset. Not Islam is the problem, but Islamism and terrorism, hatred.
I never got into trouble with Iranians here in my country. The most common occurance to get into trouble with are the Albanians, or Kosovo-Albanians. Yeah, right the folks whose asses we bombed free in 1999, which was the first real combat operation for the Luftwaffe since WWII. Talk about gratitude. Ironically, most of the Serbs who live here are pretty ****ing peacefull. Now go figure that one out. We prolly bombed the wrong guys I bet. Anyway.
I know 2+ Iranians, and they are very decent and honorable folks.
One of them - Shahab - is a cab driver I met in some bar and we got into discussing different topics, and nowadays I would call him a friend. I swear to you, I could discuss for example the Israel-Palestinian situation in a much more level-headed way than I could have hoped to do with any German. And my point was "pro-Israel". Also, at one point, when my talk was not to the liking of a bunch of barbarian Islamists hanging on the tits of the welfare state, this Iranian stood up and made them shut up. Seemingly, the Iranians actually enjoy a certain kind of respect amongst the Muslim barbarian folks by default, and probably for good reason.
The other one was actually a former employer of me. At one point, I worked two jobs to increase my income, and one company was run by that Iranian guy. Let's just say that this was one of the most fair and straight forward employers that I know, and the "company mood" was excellent. It was much more fun to work there than in my main job. People who ****ed up or didn't care about the job, they were gone. But when you did your job, you got your money and had a good time. That was just an auxilliary job for me, but the place was run very proffesionally and fair. Very good company in my opinion.
What I learned from at least those Iranians who live here is that they absolutely HATE Ahmadinejad and the oppressive Mullahs. But they would also fight to DESTROY any American or other folk who would invade their country.
I think that if the West wants to export dialogue and peace to the Muslim Middle East and Islam, their best hope are in fact the Iranian people, because they are indeed the most developed and cultural people of them all, and they have a proud history. They are no scumback barbarians who seem to sustain themselves only through a culture of Anti-Western hatred. The Iranian people could be the leaders of the Muslim world towards a peacefull relationship with the West and a better future for the Middle East as a whole.
But the REALLY TRAGIC thing is that they are now still RULED by what is nothing other than a brutal DICTATORSHIP which seeks to develope nuclear weapons. And President Obama should not forget about that when he reaches out to Iran. May God bless him for reaching out to the Iranian people. But may God also prevent him from shaking hands with their DICTATORS, which are the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad.
THIS is what is happening in Iran RIGHT NOW:
http://www.classicalvalues.com/gayexecutions.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/RYyuIkM1q9I/AAAAAAAAAAk/FXzkfaWsyr8/s320/iran%2Bhangings.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9nTItnS3VNk/SFAjcRjZD_I/AAAAAAAAWBg/0buQeJV6vIc/s400/iran+hangings.jpg
http://www.holycrime.com/Images/Sep3002Hangings8.jpg
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_03/hanging60208_468x350.jpg
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/06/xin_23212040613445462871297.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9nTItnS3VNk/SHT6WE23DpI/AAAAAAAAXqo/aTecdUIH_qo/s400/iran+missile+test+1.jpg
This is happening in Iran right now. The Iranians themselves are likely to hate it. It is good that Pres. Obama reaches out his hand, but he must be carefull not to shake it with the wrong guys, who are responsible for all the above.
Sea Demon
03-20-09, 08:37 PM
Gotta admit, pretty impressed myself. The question of course remains as to how such overtures will be received in Tehran.
None of it will. They already said they view it as weakness, and decline. Remember that? Anyway, this will do nothing of value to effect positive change in Iran. The government will still pursue a nuclear weapons program if that's what they are doing, they will still fund murderers in Gaza and Lebanon until Israel and her civilians are dead, and the Iranian people will still live in a grossly oppressive society.
The Iranian people are not the problem. I never had any trouble with any of them. They are decent people. And they are proof that it's not the religion which is the problem, but the mindset. Not Islam is the problem, but Islamism and terrorism, hatred.
I agree with heartc here.
All very well, Sea Demon, I am not debating your points. But I think you are too focused towards the iranian government. It is about the iranian government, but in a complete opposite way.
Here, some links
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/11/mostafa-eqbali.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/05/obamas-win-inspires-hope-in-irans-intelligentsia/
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSTRE52J2DW20090320
What this boils down to, and taking heartc's entry into account, is the following. The iranian government will come under a lot of internal pressure to improve the relations to the US. To do this they have to make concessions to reasonable US demands. It may even destabilize Tehrans grip on the politicial life in the country. This way or another, the US played the ball back into Irans yard. The iranian government now is under pressure to act.
The fun part is..they can only lose. if their reaction towards the US is too strong, they will lose support in a population that is not interested in the prospect of war all the time.
But if they actually give way they also lose face as their long standing propaganda obviously was not that correct. A win win for the US, a huge reputation leap within the international community and a world that actually recognizes the US as morale leader of old.
Sea Demon
03-20-09, 08:47 PM
What this boils down to is the following. The iranian government will come under a lot of internal pressure to improve the relations to the US. To do this they have to make concessions to reasonable US demands. It may even destabilize Theherans grip on the politicial life in the country. This way or another, the US played the ball back into Irans yard. The iranian government now is under pressure to act.
IMO, I just don't believe the Iranian government is under pressure to do anything they do not want. They are seeking hard power options currently, as they don't wish to lose their soft power choice of oil revenues...just yet. I don't believe a message of goodwill from a US president will change their views of Israel, their uses of terrorist organizations against civilians, their views regarding Iranian government supremacy in this region and the control of local resources, or will stop a nuclear weapons program if they are actively pursuing it. Nor will it lift the oppression from the backs of their populace. That's where I'm coming from.
No government, be it a democracy, a fashist dictatorship, a communist dictatorship, a monarchy, whatever, is able to govern without the support or silent acceptance of the majority of it's people. This includes religious authocrathies just as well.
And no people on this planet are willing to live under the constant threat of war, least nuclear retaliation, that includes the iranian people, especially when lots of the support of said regime is dependand on an outside enemy to have a fear/threat scenario to justifiy their rule as their only protectors.
Iran is not Afghanistan. Ppl their enjoy a fairly decent standart of living compared to the backwater regions, they also enjoy modern means of communication like the internet. They actually have something to lose in a war. Once the aura of good leadership, amplified by propaganda, is broken, an authocrathy has a problem. Then it has other worries then nuclear programs and power politics.
This one message certainly won't make a difference, but if the US manages to make this constant behaviour, even embedded within reasonable demands by the US understandable by the iranian people themselves, well, all options are on the table then.
The implications are pretty clear to me.
Sea Demon
03-20-09, 09:07 PM
No government, be it a democracy, a fashist dictatorship, a communist dictatorship, a monarchy, whatever, is able to govern without the support or silent acceptance of the majority of it's people. This includes religious authocrathies just as well.
They don't seem to care about any of this. Nor are they concerned with having the consent of the governed. Like I said, the Obama administration is oblivious to all of this. They don't seem too pressured to me.
"Iran brushes aside new Obama video message "
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_OBAMA?SITE=VOICESD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Max2147
03-20-09, 09:12 PM
Do you guys have any idea of how Iran is run? This isn't some strongman dictatorship we're talking about. Iran is arguably the most democratic country in the Middle East outside Israel, Turkey, and (now) Iraq.
As others here have noted, the problem in Iran is the government, not the people. But there's a very real chance that the current government will be gone within a few months. Ahmadinejad isn't very popular in Iran right now, and there's a presidential election on June 12. Unfortunately, the opposition is fragmented right now, but if they get their act together the Ahmadinejad era could be over soon.
That's why Obama is sending this message. By and large the Iranian people want to reconcile with the west. Before it was Bush and Ahmadinejad who were preventing that. Now Bush is gone, and Ahmadinejad is the only one standing in the way. Obama is basically telling the Iranian people, "If you vote Ahmadinejad out, relations between our countries will improve dramatically."
The timing of this move is NOT accidental, and it could be a masterstroke by Obama.
They don't seem to care about any of this. Nor are they concerned with having the consent of the governed. Like I said, the Obama administration is oblivious to all of this. They don't seem too pressured to me.
"Iran brushes aside new Obama video message "
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN_OBAMA?SITE=VOICESD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
What did you expect? the last thing the iranian government needs right now are peace talks with Obama. What this means I think others and me explained in detail already.
Oh, and if you read that article you posted, you will find some very similiar notions.
Sea Demon
03-20-09, 09:43 PM
Do you guys have any idea of how Iran is run? This isn't some strongman dictatorship we're talking about. Iran is arguably the most democratic country in the Middle East outside Israel, Turkey, and (now) Iraq.
As others here have noted, the problem in Iran is the government, not the people. But there's a very real chance that the current government will be gone within a few months. Ahmadinejad isn't very popular in Iran right now, ..............etc.
Ahmadinejad is not the government. The Supreme Leader Khameini is. Iran is a "democratic" country only to the extent that they have elections. The power for the people to effect any real change remains zero. No, Iran is an Islamic dictatorship despite them having a "president" and a Parliament.
What did you expect? the last thing the iranian government needs right now are peace talks with Obama. What this means I think others and me explained in detail already.
Actually this is exaclty what I expected. And I expect no change in Iran's sponsorship of terrorist groups that murder civilians, I expect no transparency or details into their nuclear ambitions, I expect no changes into the oppression of their people. In other words, this action by the Obama administration is naive and fruitless. It was an action of no value to the US and it's taxpayers. Nor will it help the Iranian people in any way. Actually, quite the opposite. In fact, this is the type of appeasement I believe that discourages dissident groups in countries like these to cower in obscurity. This video and the reaction is precisely what I knew it was....worthless.
See, Demon, that is because you believe in the bad in people.
I'll stick to the good ones.
Has to be seen whose horse makes the race.
Sea Demon
03-20-09, 09:58 PM
See, Demon, that is because you believe in the bad in people.
I'll stick to the good ones.
Has to be seen whose horse makes the race.
No sir. I know there is both good and bad apples out there. I see good in people when their actions reflect it. But I can also recognize evil people and the fruitless pursuits to appease them when I see it. Any student of history knows how these things play out.
Freiwillige
03-20-09, 11:27 PM
I keep hearing a one sided story about Iranian's funding murderers. Isreal's record is far from clean in the atrocity department. Not taking sides but the facts bear Isreal half responsibility to the current situation there. There is much smoke and mirrors going on in both sides of this never ending conflict. My question is this, Why is it benificial to the U.S. to support either party? Bloody hands are hard to shake!
Let them sort out there own mess. My 2 cents.
UnderseaLcpl
03-21-09, 03:17 AM
I keep hearing a one sided story about Iranian's funding murderers. Isreal's record is far from clean in the atrocity department. Not taking sides but the facts bear Isreal half responsibility to the current situation there. There is much smoke and mirrors going on in both sides of this never ending conflict. My question is this, Why is it benificial to the U.S. to support either party? Bloody hands are hard to shake!
Let them sort out there own mess. My 2 cents.
:rock::rock::rock:
Of course, the question then becomes how to disentangle ourselves without pissing everyone off.:hmmm:
Digital_Trucker
03-21-09, 09:14 AM
:rock::rock::rock:
Of course, the question then becomes how to disentangle ourselves without pissing everyone off.:hmmm:
At the moment, there isn't much this country can do without pissing everyone off, so just go for it.
Tribesman
03-21-09, 10:27 AM
So Maliki is under Iranian government control because he used contacts within them to try and depose Saddam when he was a dissident himself?
Yes , you only have to look at most recent decisions and policies he has implimented to see who is pulling the strings .
But in the real world, he has angered some in Iran for his willingness to work with the USA on joint security in the region.....
Excuse me , what were the terms America eventually had to agree to when the clock ran out on the "not up for negotiation" SOFA deal ?
It has made some in the USA and allied nations concerned because Maliki has made references to Iran as friends. And so he should be watched. I believe we have been successfully doing just that.
Wow you almost had it there . try again .
But to say that Maliki is controleld from Iran, or that Iraq currently presents an even graver threat to regional security than Saddam's government clearly is bassackwards
:rotfl:Talk about bad timing , perhaps you have missed the latest drip feed of the real intelligence they were given that the governments have been trying to hide because their pile of lies made a case where reality didn't. The assesment was that Saddam was no threat at all to regional security.
So is Iraq now a greater threat ? Lets see ,two countries regularly bomb and shell Iraq as a reaction to the threats from Iraq , One country has an ongoing long standing occupation of Iraqi territory to counter the threat Iraq poses , didn't the Isreali backed terrorist faction in Iraq threaten to launch a campaign of terrorist bombings against a neighbouring state .
Sure we can. We have the military infrastructure, and are more than capable of conducting a sustained bombing camaign against Iran if need be.
Really ? Where is the regional command center that is key part of that infrastructure ? What have the government of that State said they will do if America attacks Iran ?
Which are the ports and airports that the US relies on in the region ? What have all those governments said they will do to those facilities if America attacks Iran ?
And of course since the straights are covered by two countries , what has the country that isn't Iran said it will do to all its airspace and territorial waters if America attacks Iran ?
As for Iran supporting and supplying terrorists who directly target civilians, I find your views rather troublesome. The USA does not support terrorist organizations who's stated goals are to target civilians to effect their desires.
Bollocks , blowing up airliners , bombing hotels and factories and murdering olympic athletes is exactly the same as what the other nasty terrorists do . Come to think of it while certain American politicians are repeatedly trying to get terrorists offices and funds opened again in the US Maliki is deporting the very same terrorists as part of his deal with Iran .
We may have supplied some bad people in the past to ward off Soviet aggression (national security objectives), or other geostrategic factors.
So you do it for security reasons because you don't like another government or for geostrategic reasons .....just like Iran then .
But no, we have never directly supported t
errorist organizations whose purpose it is to "wipe off the map" a nation of people.
:har: Even MEMRI says that is a bollox translation .
So these terrorists you supported for political or geostratregical reasons , would that be like saying removing the regime based in Moscow and consigning it to the dustbin of history ?
The USSR is wiped off the map isn't it :yep:
Max2147
03-21-09, 10:39 AM
Ahmadinejad is not the government. The Supreme Leader Khameini is. Iran is a "democratic" country only to the extent that they have elections. The power for the people to effect any real change remains zero. No, Iran is an Islamic dictatorship despite them having a "president" and a Parliament.
Khameini generally stays above politics. He and the other 'Guardians' don't have much to do with the day to day running of the country and the foreign policy. They define the boundaries of Iranian policy, but what happens within those boundaries is almost entirely up to the Iranian government.
When Khatami was President there was a notable thaw in Iranian-Western relations. Not as much as we would have liked, but a thaw nonetheless. When Ahmadinejad came in things got a lot worse.
Who has called for the elimination of Israel? Ahmadinejad. Who has questioned the Holocaust? Ahmadinejad. Who has refused to negotiate over the nuclear program? Ahmadinejad. Khameini put a fatwa against all nuclear weapons.
I'm not saying everything will be perfect and wonderful if Ahmadinejad gets voted out. The conservative clerics in Iran are still very powerful. But I think that tensions would come down a couple notches, and we'd find a much better partner for dialouge.
:rock::rock::rock:
Of course, the question then becomes how to disentangle ourselves without pissing everyone off.:hmmm:
So basically you guys want an apparently nuclear armed Israel to stand alone against all the Arab nations and Persia as well and what, accept destruction, without using those nukes?
I don't think that's such a good idea. The Israelis have their problems but they are the only functioning democracy in the entire region. To abandon them would pretty much seal their doom.
UnderseaLcpl
03-21-09, 02:10 PM
So basically you guys want an apparently nuclear armed Israel to stand alone against all the Arab nations and Persia as well and what, accept destruction, without using those nukes?
I don't think that's such a good idea. The Israelis have their problems but they are the only functioning democracy in the entire region. To abandon them would pretty much seal their doom.
It's a complicated problem. Israel has been one of our best allies since it was created, and I also dislike the thought of "abandoning" them. Remember, however, that Israel has only been a state since 1948, fiated into exsistence right on top of the Palestinians. More than anything else, Israel is a prime factor in anti-western agitation there.
I'd prefer to ease out of the Middle East, gradually shifting the responsibility for the region onto Europe. It's their backyard, and they made the mess to begin with. Imo, we should be disengaging ourselves from all of our alliances as delicately as possible. Then we should refrain from making any more.
All our alliances do/did/will do is put unwarranted financial and political strain on the country. I'm with Thomas Jefferson on this one.
I'd prefer to ease out of the Middle East, gradually shifting the responsibility for the region onto Europe. It's their backyard, and they made the mess to begin with. Imo, we should be disengaging ourselves from all of our alliances as delicately as possible. Then we should refrain from making any more.
All our alliances do/did/will do is put unwarranted financial and political strain on the country. I'm with Thomas Jefferson on this one.
I see your point but you know that shifting the responsibility to Europe is pretty much the same as totally abandoning them.
UnderseaLcpl
03-21-09, 02:20 PM
I see your point but you know that shifting the responsibility to Europe is pretty much the same as totally abandoning them.
Hahaha! Seriously, though, they aren't that bad. It wasn't so long ago that Europe had most of the Middle East under its' thumb. Perhaps if a major conflict were to start in the Middle East (without the U.S.) it would galvanize Europe into action.
CaptainHaplo
03-21-09, 02:57 PM
You know... with Benny now the head of Israel again (and he should be able to work out a functioning government) - maybe now is the time to slowly ease back. After all - Netanyahu is a true security hawk. He understand the reality of the situation - and WOULD use nukes to preserve his country. I'll tell you right now - if there is a single leader in the region who isn't shy about answering the "them or us" question - its Benny.
I had the opportunity to meet with him once - and I was overjoyed at the result of the recent Israeli election. A stable, thoughtful, dedicated leader who is courageous enough to face the problems with his eyes open is what the region and the country needs.
Europe can't get its collective mind together enough to solve its own problems - much less be effective in handling the middle east.
Tribesman
03-21-09, 07:59 PM
You know... with Benny now the head of Israel again (and he should be able to work out a functioning government)
Can he though ?
After Kadimas rejection of a coilition deal he is now applying for the final 14 day extention to try and form a government with Labour ...but so far half of Labours MKs have said no and only 3 have said they might be interested .
It may well be that his only option remaining for forming a government is a coilition with the most extemist moon bat parties to make up the numbers, which is going to be a pretty hard challenge to get some of those nuts to function at all let alone as a funcrtioning government .
Max2147
03-22-09, 12:52 AM
CaptainHaplo is right - Benny wouldn't hesitate to use nuclear weapons if he felt Israel's existence was threatened.
But that's exactly why the US needs to stay between Iran and Israel. An Israeli nuclear strike on Iran would have massive repercussions on the world oil market. Even if the US could cut its dependence on foreign oil, other nations like China and Japan would suffer in a huge way, and their problems would spill over to the US. It would make the current financial crisis look like a little blip.
Foxtrot
03-22-09, 03:38 AM
I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are
Tribesman
03-22-09, 06:05 AM
I don't care what the facts are
An interesting viewpoint , rather like the view someone gets by burying their head in the sand .
CaptainHaplo
03-22-09, 10:31 AM
For once I have to agree with Tribesman - there have been actions my goverrment has done that I do not support nor condone. The bay of pigs is a perfect example. However - I support my COUNTRY at all times - just not always the government blindly. There is a big differnce.
CaptainHaplo
03-22-09, 11:38 AM
Actually a nuclear strike by Israel in defense of its existence might actually have some positives. Now I know I am going to really stress alot of folks out with that statement - because the knee jerk reaction is that no nuclear strike (or violent action of any sort) can be positive. However, lets think about this without the "humanitarian" factor.
If Israel is fighting for its survival - then we are talking about 3 possibilities. A nuclear EXCHANGE with a country in the region that does not border Israel, a nuclear or other WMD series of attacks made possible by external countries supporting terrorist groups who carry out such attacks, or a conventional conflict.
A conventional conflict right now is rather unlikely in reality. The reasoning is that the only country that has any desire to tangle with Israel is Syria. Egypt has embraced and enjoyed peace and - barring a MAJOR change of power and focus, they will not be involved in a conflict with Israel. Like many middle eastern countries - they have enough internal issues to deal with. Jordan has learned its lesson and has enjoyed a stable border, thus the kingdom is content to keep things as they are. Lebanon is doing its best to merely survive, and can't decide if it wants to be "little syria" or not. Syria - on its own, does not have the true moxy to go after its neighbor without help. Lets say for a second it does, and somehow found a way to truly be near victory. A nuclear strike would occur - and with the warheads available, the country of syria would cease to exist.
Lets say Syria or Iran for example - decided to instead use its tendrils to provide either a "suitcase" nuke, or a chem/bio weapon to terrorists. Such an action - based upon the agent in the case of B or C - or the mere existance of it being N - would result in an EXTREME reaction from Israel. First, their would no longer be a "palestinian problem" as it so often has been called. There would be no hope of ever being a palestinian homeland or peace. Then, the question would be the source - and retaliation upon it. If it is deemed Iran, there would be no ability to strike conventionally with an ... appropriate response. After all - Israel doesn't have a fleet of heavy bombers to flatten a large section of the country. So its response would have to be "in kind" - nuclear. The result - the agitating, Islamic fundamentalist government of Iran would - say it with me - cease to exist. If the source was syria - what you would see is the use of tactical nukes to cut a path through the "manned border" so that the Israeli military could spear through to Damascus and capture it. If that proved to difficult, then they would be content to penetrate and capture additional territory as a "buffer" (as the Golan Heights have been) while using nukes to flatten Damascus, killing the Syrian leadership.
The last option, a nuclear exchange - is why Israel is so bound and determined to keep other countries in the region from getting nukes. There are no "winners" in a nuclear exchange. However, were it to happen, you can count on one thing. If Israel goes down, every single hostile country in the region would be going with it.
Now - while I accept and acknowledge that the human cost of either of these scenarios would be horrific, and should be avoided at any reasonable cost, the fact is that such actions WOULD have some positives.
For one, it would wipe out ALOT of the agitators in the middle east. Anyone remember why the 1st Bush didn't take out Saddam during Desert Storm? He knew it would create a power vacuum - as it did when it happened. If Iran, Syria or both were suddenly "leaderless" - the vacuum and internicine warfare that would result would throw the region into total chaos. However, the chaos would be good, as it would be focused on internal power struggles and allow other states in the region to stabilize - namely Lebanon and Iraq, to be free from outside interference. In addition, by taking out those who agitated for violence and jihad against Israel and the westernized world, you would also make it really hard for those that DID take power to do the same. For 2 reasons. First, leaders don't want martyrdom - they want the plebians to go out and be martyrs. They won't want to end up like their predecessors. For some reason, most Islamic hardline leaders don't seem too geared up to get to paradise themselves... Secondly, the new leaders wouldn't be in power if their predecessors had not been vaporized, so they are going to be forced into the realization that it is in their best interest to maintain, at the least, a grudging respect for those who opened the door to the paths of power.
Ultimately - the one thing people need to realize is that the Middle East has been at war in one way or another for not centuries - but millenia. It will continue to do so. Its simply a matter of who they will be fighting. Thus, while a nuclear strike should always be avoided when possible, in the case of Israel and it happening in the middle east, one must look at it from the perspective of broken eggs can be used to make poisoned omelets for your foes.
Max2147
03-22-09, 01:37 PM
The Muslim outrage at any Israeli nuclear strike on Muslims would create far more agitators than the nuclear strike destroyed.
Most leaders in the Muslim world don't see Israel as a real threat. They say that Israel is bad and should be gone, but in reality they're content to let Israel exist as is. Their anti-Israel rhetoric helps satisfy their populations, but the reality is that, with the possible exception of Iran, no leader of a Muslim country will lift a finger to attack Israel. It's a classic free rider issue - they'd all like to see Israel gone, but only if somebody else pays the price.
If Israel launches a surprise nuclear strike, Israel would go from being an annoyance to a real threat to the entire Muslim world. Any Muslim leader who didn't attack Israel with everything he had would have his balls shoved down his throat by his people before they decapitated him and replaced him with the most virulently anti-Israel leader they could find. Unless Israel was able to commit systematic nuclear genocide to wipe out the world's Muslim population (wouldn't that be ironic), they'd be buried under a wave of Muslim attackers. F-15's and Apaches are great at fighting off enemy armies, but they're not terribly useful against literal human wave attacks. The Muslim world would keep attacking Israel until there weren't any Muslims left.
Israel wouldn't be able to rely on the US for help. First off, the US would have enough trouble fending off the anger of the Muslim world for helping the Israelis. Second, the basic US policy is to only support the Israelis if they're attacked. The Israelis know this. That's why Israel didn't launch a pre-emptive strike in 1973, even though King Hussein of Jordan was (secretly) in Tel Aviv telling them that the Syrians and Egyptians were going to attack the next day. Kissinger later said that if the Israelis struck first, they wouldn't have gotten a penny from the US.
CaptainHaplo
03-22-09, 03:12 PM
Max - I agree that if this was instigated by Israel that would change the equation significantly. However, the premise of my post was that any nuclear action taken by Israel would be in retaliation for an N/B/C attack, or as a last resort to stave off a military defeat.
If they were attacked first - as I am putting forth - the US would likely (though with this administration one never knows) still be supportive. If they pre-empt - absolutely not.
Digital_Trucker
03-22-09, 05:16 PM
Who has called for the elimination of Israel? Ahmadinejad. Who has questioned the Holocaust? Ahmadinejad. Who has refused to negotiate over the nuclear program? Ahmadinejad. Khameini put a fatwa against all nuclear weapons.
I'm not saying everything will be perfect and wonderful if Ahmadinejad gets voted out. The conservative clerics in Iran are still very powerful. But I think that tensions would come down a couple notches, and we'd find a much better partner for dialouge.
Most leaders in the Muslim world don't see Israel as a real threat. They say that Israel is bad and should be gone, but in reality they're content to let Israel exist as is. Their anti-Israel rhetoric helps satisfy their populations, but the reality is that, with the possible exception of Iran, no leader of a Muslim country will lift a finger to attack Israel.
Which is it? The people of Iran want Israel gone and Ahmadinejad only says that he does to appease the people, or the people don't really want Israel gone and Ahmadinejad is a raving lunatic and things will be better when the people wise up and don't reelect him?
The Muslim outrage at any Israeli nuclear strike on Muslims would create far more agitators than the nuclear strike destroyed.
If the reports are to be believed, Israel has had the Bomb for 40 years now, and in all that time and during all those provocations they still haven't used it. I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that they are unlikely to make a first strike on anyone.
If they do use the bomb it will only be under the most dire of national circumstances. At that point creating more Muslim agitators would hardly be a concern don't you think?
CaptainHaplo
03-22-09, 09:27 PM
:yeah:
Amen August.
Max2147
03-22-09, 09:50 PM
Which is it? The people of Iran want Israel gone and Ahmadinejad only says that he does to appease the people, or the people don't really want Israel gone and Ahmadinejad is a raving lunatic and things will be better when the people wise up and don't reelect him?
If you took your average Muslim and let them design a perfect world, Israel would almost certainly not be in it. But most of them are in the same boat as their leaders - they like to talk the talk, but they don't actually do anything about it.
Talking about the injustices of Israel plays well in the Muslim world. But blatant saber rattling that brings a lot of trouble to your country doesn't play well anywhere. And either way, Ahmadinejad is unpopular for his economic policies more than anything else.
Now back to the topic, I agree that Israel probably wouldn't strike first. I was just using that as a hypothetical. But if Israel got hit first with WMD, things wouldn't be that different. The Muslim world would still be inflamed like crazy. If the dozen or so biggest cities in the West got nuked, it wouldn't matter who started it, the entire Western world would still be out for blood. The same would be true for the Muslim world if Israel attacked.
Suppose it's in the "most dire of national circumstances" like August said. I take that to mean that the future existence of Israel is under threat. Is creating more enemies really a good strategy at that point? It's one thing to have the entire Muslim world dancing in the streets hearing that you've been hit with WMD. It's quite another to have the entire Muslim world rushing to their nearest airport/train station/bus station/port to go attack you with whatever weapons they can get their hands on.
I understand that the Israelis would want to use every weapon in their arsenal to save themselves. I'm just questioning whether nukes would be effective in doing that. Unless they have the capability to commit systematic nuclear genocide, I think a nuclear attack by Israel under any circumstance would still cause them more harm than it solves.
Suppose it's in the "most dire of national circumstances" like August said. I take that to mean that the future existence of Israel is under threat. Is creating more enemies really a good strategy at that point? It's one thing to have the entire Muslim world dancing in the streets hearing that you've been hit with WMD. It's quite another to have the entire Muslim world rushing to their nearest airport/train station/bus station/port to go attack you with whatever weapons they can get their hands on.
More than just a future threat, heck Israel has lived under threats to their existence ever since they became a nation. Why would they suddenly loose their cool and start shooting off nukes when they haven't yet?
No, by "dire" I mean that their total destruction is imminent and using their nukes is the only option they have left. (that should be every nations standard for their use imo). In that situation the Israelis would hardly care about further inflaming the Muslim world and neither would I.
I also think you seriously over estimate the Muslims solidarity. Israel trading WMDs with Tehran or Damascus is not going to automatically cause every other Muslim nation in the middle east, let alone the planet, to reach for a piece of that radio active pie.
Max2147
03-23-09, 08:02 AM
I also think you seriously over estimate the Muslims solidarity. Israel trading WMDs with Tehran or Damascus is not going to automatically cause every other Muslim nation in the middle east, let alone the planet, to reach for a piece of that radio active pie.
I think that's sort of the point. The Muslim world is usually more concerned about fighting itself than dealing with outsiders. But Israel is different. Nothing would unite the Muslim world like an Israeli nuclear attack.
I see where you're coming from as far as the dire threat, but I just can't see a circumstance where launching nukes would actually help Israel's chances for future existence. What you're talking about sounds more like a revenge attack than anything else - Israel would basically be saying "we're going down, but by golly we're not going down alone."
I think that's sort of the point. The Muslim world is usually more concerned about fighting itself than dealing with outsiders. But Israel is different. Nothing would unite the Muslim world like an Israeli nuclear attack.
I see where you're coming from as far as the dire threat, but I just can't see a circumstance where launching nukes would actually help Israel's chances for future existence. What you're talking about sounds more like a revenge attack than anything else - Israel would basically be saying "we're going down, but by golly we're not going down alone."
Post WW2 nukes have always been a deterrent weapon. IE "Try to destroy me and i'll destroy you". But for such a deterrent to work the threat to use them must be credible.
Max2147
03-23-09, 11:23 AM
Post WW2 nukes have always been a deterrent weapon. IE "Try to destroy me and i'll destroy you". But for such a deterrent to work the threat to use them must be credible.
But once somebody else has destroyed you, does it really matter? At what point does it become spite instead of national defense?
Your deterrence doesn't fail when you decide to not attack, your deterrence fails when you get attacked by the weapons you were trying to deter.
If Israel is in a position where they're not going to exist tomorrow, their deterrence has already failed completely. At that point, a nuclear strike would be a purely spiteful action.
Platapus
03-23-09, 07:07 PM
If you took your average Muslim and let them design a perfect world, Israel would almost certainly not be in it.
There are a number of Americans who think that way also. What does that prove?
Max2147
03-23-09, 07:42 PM
There are a number of Americans who think that way also. What does that prove?
Nothing. I wasn't trying to prove anything with that statement.
But once somebody else has destroyed you, does it really matter? At what point does it become spite instead of national defense?
Your deterrence doesn't fail when you decide to not attack, your deterrence fails when you get attacked by the weapons you were trying to deter.
If Israel is in a position where they're not going to exist tomorrow, their deterrence has already failed completely. At that point, a nuclear strike would be a purely spiteful action.
You don't understand. Effective deterrence requires the certainty of use or it isn't much of a deterrent at all.
Max2147
03-24-09, 12:35 AM
You don't understand. Effective deterrence requires the certainty of use or it isn't much of a deterrent at all.
Oh, I understand perfectly. Israel has to convince any potential enemy that they will fry them until they glow if they attack Israel with WMD.
The point I'm making is that after you've been attacked, your deterrence has already failed. You have to do what's in your interest going forward, not looking backwards. If a nuclear strike isn't in your best interests, you shouldn't do it, deterrence be damned.
This goes beyond Israel, and it's part of the perverse logic around nuclear weapons. If you're running a country with nukes and you see enough missiles show up on your radar to completely wipe you off the map, is it really worth it to launch your own nukes? It won't save your country - you'll be dead either way. Your only possible motive for launching your own arsenal would be spite and revenge.
The dirty little secret that nobody likes to mention about deterrence is that it relies on a human - a fallible creature subject to irrational emotions. That fallible human being could look at the incoming missiles, know his time is up, and decide that it's not worth killing millions of more just to prove that his deterrence was credible. That's why the Doomsday Machine was so brilliant. Completely and irreversibly removing the human element was the only way of producing a 100% reliable deterrence. If only the Party Congress hadn't been on Monday....
The other issue to remember with Israel is that for some actors in the Muslim world, mutually assured destruction with Israel is an acceptable solution. Terrorist groups certainly think that way, and with the right (wrong) leaders, some states might go down that path as well. It would in effect be the ultimate suicide bombing.
Ultimately, you have to consider the situations Israel would find itself in where it might have to use nukes.
Situation A - Israel has been hit by WMD and is badly wounded, but still alive. In their wounded and vulnerable state, Israel wouldn't be able to afford creating any more enemies. The waves of enraged attackers that a nuclear strike would create might very well change the war from one Israel can survive to one they can't.
Situation B - Israel is under attack and total defeat is inevitable. In that situation a nuclear strike would just be spiteful. It would be a way for them to go down with both middle fingers raised high.
Either way, I don't see a nuclear strike as in Israel's best interest, or the world's best interest.
If you're running a country with nukes and you see enough missiles show up on your radar to completely wipe you off the map, is it really worth it to launch your own nukes? It won't save your country - you'll be dead either way. Your only possible motive for launching your own arsenal would be spite and revenge.
No, the reason for launching is to extract the price for ignoring the deterrent.
You talk about what's good for the world, let me ask you a question. What good does making an aggressor think he can get away with a nuclear attack on another country if he just launches first and hits hard enough? Do you think that will increase or decrease the chance of someone trying it?
"extract the price for ignoring the deterrent"
err?
Who cares? Once the bombs start flying, you think anybody gives a rat's a** about such theories or how stupid nationalistic power gambles justify the extinction of countless human souls?
Max has a point. Once deterrence has failed, there is absolutely no logical reason to strike back anyways but revenge. It won't help the country that was attacked, it won't bring back the people that got killed, it won't help the earth in recovering at all, it won't help "win" a war...actually, it does not serve anything but the satisfaction of the vitims of not going down alone, that's it. That does not mean such eotions are not understandable. But it defies any logic, intelligence, common sense, you name it.
It is a typical concept where everything boils down to principle. Just that in this case sticking to principle will cost more lives for absolutely zero gain for anybody but sticking to principle out of principles sake by people who are already dead.
It's a completly different question if another image has to be upheld "beforehand" for a working deterrence.
Max2147
03-24-09, 01:30 PM
It's a completly different question if another image has to be upheld "beforehand" for a working deterrence.
Exactly. Before the missiles fly, you want any potential enemy to be absolutely convinced that you will strike back. By all means, point your missiles at them, make public plans to launch immediately, talk the talk, and start up a mysterious project headed by a guy codenamed Dr. Strangelove.
But nuclear weapons have a bizarre logic about them, and that logic (or lack thereof) can cause the human element of deterrence to fail.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just pointing out that deterrence theory has some major holes. Maybe a Doomsday Machine would be good for the world, but the fact is we don't have one.
Who cares? Once the bombs start flying, you think anybody gives a rat's a** about such theories or how stupid nationalistic power gambles justify the extinction of countless human souls?
Who cares? well i'd say the people trying to determine if you will keep your promise of retaliation. The second they get the idea you will not keep that promise your deterrence is gone and you increase the chances of that attack actually occurring.
Max has a point. Once deterrence has failed, there is absolutely no logical reason to strike back anyways but revenge.
You two are acting like you would have all the time in the world to weigh the current merits of such decisions. Like you would actually know whether or not your retaliatory strike might minimize the effects of the original attack or it will do no good at all.
Sorry but I just don't think you can do a serious potential damage assessment in the 5 minutes you'll have to make a decision.
Who cares? well i'd say the people trying to determine if you will keep your promise of retaliation. The second they get the idea you will not keep that promise your deterrence is gone and you increase the chances of that attack actually occurring.
Well, the second they get the idea there won't be a retaltiation is only after they already started their attack, so that hardly matters.
You have to differ between upholding the threat of retaliation and actually doing it. The moment the attack starts deterrance has failed anyways.
You two are acting like you would have all the time in the world to weigh the current merits of such decisions. Like you would actually know whether or not your retaliatory strike might minimize the effects of the original attack or it will do no good at all.
Sorry but I just don't think you can do a serious potential damage assessment in the 5 minutes you'll have to make a decision.
Well, how would you minimize the damage effect after the attack had occured by starting your own attack? You make it sound that retaliation somehow minimizes the effect of the initial attack. Hardly the case.
Sea Demon
03-24-09, 03:29 PM
Well, how would you minimize the damage effect after the attack had occured by starting your own attack? You make it sound that retaliation somehow minimizes the effect of the initial attack. Hardly the case.
I've got to agree with August here. Deterrence in the true sense is what has ultimately kept the peace for many decades. To some that is counter-intuitive...but it is true like it or not. In principle, the retaliatory strike has to take place without hesitation. This should not even be in question. This is not just in the sense of vengeance, although there would be nothing wrong with exacting vengeance in this case. But the fact that the attacking force should exact the price of deterrence that they payed for. Any society that annihilates mine, has no justification to survive themselves. Lesson......don't launch mass destruction attacks unless you want the same done to you. Very simple and necessary.
Max2147
03-24-09, 04:34 PM
I've got to agree with August here. Deterrence in the true sense is what has ultimately kept the peace for many decades. To some that is counter-intuitive...but it is true like it or not. In principle, the retaliatory strike has to take place without hesitation. This should not even be in question. This is not just in the sense of vengeance, although there would be nothing wrong with exacting vengeance in this case. But the fact that the attacking force should exact the price of deterrence that they payed for. Any society that annihilates mine, has no justification to survive themselves. Lesson......don't launch mass destruction attacks unless you want the same done to you. Very simple and necessary.
Fair enough. Effective deterrence that would retaliate without hesitation can be a good thing for your own security and for the greater peace. But the fact is that doesn't exist. You're not human if you can launch a massive nuclear strike that would kill millions of innocents without at least hesitating. That's why the best deterrence (a Doomsday Machine) would completely remove the possibility of human meddling.
Again, I'm not saying the holes in deterrence are a good thing, but they do exist.
baggygreen
03-24-09, 04:42 PM
I'd like to make a point that if at any time israel was to be attacked by a wmd such as a nuke, and that nuke was positively tied to any nation, they'd have most of the west's backing in a retaliatory strike.
I would think that if that strike led to the nutbag muslims jumping onto planes to go to the front, and Israel begin to feel overwhelmed, you'd see a shipload of assistance and probably troops begin pouring in from all over the west.
thats my 2c anyways, I just can't see any western nation being able to stand by while israel falters. I can't see it happeninng. whether that is a good thing or not is another matter, but thats the way I picture it.
You have to differ between upholding the threat of retaliation and actually doing it. The moment the attack starts deterrance has failed anyways.
No, I don't have to differ between upholding the threat and actually doing it and nor should the Israelis. Call retaliation "revenge", call it "spite", call it anything you want, but the only thing that's really important here is that you call it "inevitable". Otherwise you loose the deterrent value and actually encourage an attack.
Well, how would you minimize the damage effect after the attack had occured by starting your own attack? You make it sound that retaliation somehow minimizes the effect of the initial attack. Hardly the case.
Obviously not, but it would likely prevent a second or a third strike from happening. It would be kind of foolish to launch everything on the first strike and leave nothing in reserve to deal with surviving enemy assets.
I'd like to make a point that if at any time israel was to be attacked by a wmd such as a nuke, and that nuke was positively tied to any nation, they'd have most of the west's backing in a retaliatory strike.
I would think that if that strike led to the nutbag muslims jumping onto planes to go to the front, and Israel begin to feel overwhelmed, you'd see a shipload of assistance and probably troops begin pouring in from all over the west.
thats my 2c anyways, I just can't see any western nation being able to stand by while israel falters. I can't see it happeninng. whether that is a good thing or not is another matter, but thats the way I picture it.
I think we would and most likely the Brits and you Aussies would but Europe? I just don't think so. I think they'd stand by and wring their hands but ultimately do nothing.
No, I don't have to differ between upholding the threat and actually doing it and nor should the Israelis. Call retaliation "revenge", call it "spite", call it anything you want, but the only thing that's really important here is that you call it "inevitable". Otherwise you loose the deterrent value and actually encourage an attack.
Obviously not, but it would likely prevent a second or a third strike from happening. It would be kind of foolish to launch everything on the first strike and leave nothing in reserve to deal with surviving enemy assets.
I call it stupid, in it's truest and most basic sense, plain and simple.
Military assets my a**. Do you have an idea how earth would look like after the first strikes on both sides? Do you really think it matters then if a second or third strike comes? Or what importance this war has once ppl get aware that their world is gone?
For the sake of the theory of detterance you are willing to sacrifice, when worse comes to worst, millions of people. Just because they happen to live in the country whose leaders showed the mindblowing idiocy to start a nuclear holocaust.
Who gives you, or anybody else, the right to come up with such a plan? What makes you think just because a bunch of government idiots started to kill the innocent ppl in one nation the right and logical answer is to kill the innocent people who happen to live in the country who started it? What is the "sense" of killing all these people just too proof the concept?
Detterance and the believeable threat of doing it is the one hand. The other is actually pulling it through. And the doomsday machine, and you may very well notice the terminology of this term, would have been the stupidest brainfart ever created by humankind.
CaptainHaplo
03-24-09, 08:32 PM
Your right Beowulf - the smart thing to do would be to lay down your arms, beg that the attacker stop vaporizing you and hope for the best right? :nope:
You go right ahead and turn all french, but the idea here is that if the other guy decides to nuke you - why the heck would you just roll over and die - when you could extract a measure of cost from your opponent? After all - if they wipe you out then they can just keep marching on to world domination... unless of course you do the surviving rest of humanity a favor and take out the problem... because sooner or later - someone will.
stupid...you are willing to sacrifice...
Who gives you, or anybody else, the right...
....stupidest brainfart ever created by humankind.
First i'll ask you to keep a civil tongue in your head Bewolf. Flamebaiting isn't doing your argument any favors here.
Secondly, I believe all your argument would accomplish is to vastly increase the chances of a nuclear "holocaust" against the Israelis, because it tells their enemies that they can launch a WMD attack and get away with it.
You can't deny this. Making threats out of one side of your mouth while acknowledging you wouldn't actually carry them out from the other side has never fooled anyone.
But lets explore what would happen if the Israelis were to be dumb enough to adopt your position:
The scenario is that Israel is hit with one or more Persian nukes and refuses to retaliate in kind. Several of their cities lie in radioactive ruins and millions of Israelis are dead and dying. There is much rejoicing in the streets of Tehran, not so many in fallout covered Gaza and the West Bank.
Now since you won't let the Israelis respond what is oh so morally superior Europe going to do about this horrible Iranian agression? Sanctions? A strongly worded diplomatic protest? Can you honestly tell me that Europe would go to war against a nuclear armed enemy to defend Israel in that instance?
I think you would do nothing, but shed a few crocodile tears and go back to business as usual, secretly happy that the Jews have finally been destroyed. Doing nothing, that's all Europe seems good for these days, but then again given your history maybe that's a good thing.
Sea Demon
03-24-09, 10:24 PM
For the sake of the theory of detterance you are willing to sacrifice, when worse comes to worst, millions of people. Just because they happen to live in the country whose leaders showed the mindblowing idiocy to start a nuclear holocaust.
Who gives you, or anybody else, the right to come up with such a plan? What makes you think just because a bunch of government idiots started to kill the innocent ppl in one nation the right and logical answer is to kill the innocent people who happen to live in the country who started it?
Please go and make your arguments with both China and Russia. Put your muddled logic into their thinking. Please tell them their deterrence capabilities are immoral, idiocy, and simply worthless theories. Go and convince them first. Publish articles in People's daily and Pravda outlining your thinkings of unnecessary holocaust. Write letters to both the Kremlin and the dictator Hu. I'm not suicidal. And I also understand what has kept the major powers from coming to blows for decades. So until you can convince these potential hostile powers of your logic, and they decide not to have mass destruction capabilities, we need the same with the willingness to act if necessary. If anybody launches a nuclear strike on my nation or conducts mass destruction strikes on her interests in anyway resulting in millions of deaths of our people, I expect the Trident D5's and Minuteman 3's to be flying. And I expect wholesale destruction of their societies. Their societies continued existence has no justification at that point in my mind. Harsh but true. If they want to survive, they shouldn't strike. Simple to understand.
We have true deterrence as long as we don't allow this type of muddled thinking into our policies. Why is it that people in Western Europe have become so suicidal and lacking in any understanding of what deterrence is? I'm not accusing you of anything Bewolf, but this type of thinking is not conducive to any type of national security, and it's usually a European that thinks this way.
Max2147
03-24-09, 10:42 PM
First off, Beowulf and I are not Israeli military planners, and the Iranian leaders aren't reading this forum.
Secondly, we're not rejoicing that deterrence is fallible. It would be better if it was perfect. We're saying what the facts are, not the way things ought to be.
Third, we're not advocating that Israel tell anybody they wouldn't attack. Like I said, this is deterrence's dirty little secret. You don't tell your enemies about your weaknesses.
Let me make it perfectly clear: Israel's public position should be that if anybody attacks them with WMD, they will fry that attacker to a crisp.
All I'm saying is that when push comes to shove, following through with that policy might not be the best thing for Israel or the world. There's nothing wrong with having one policy in public and having another one in private.
Remember that an Iranian attack on Israel would not be the same as a Cold War style nuclear war. The objective would not be to beat Israel in a war, but to physically eliminate them. Therefore, the Iranians would most likely use everything they have in a first strike. They also wouldn't strike until they have the capability to actually wipe Israel out. A strike on Israel that leaves some Israeli capability left would be national suicide, pure and simple.
Now, let's get back to my two scenarios.
The first is that Israel has already been hit, but is still alive. You'd have to presume that Israel would be in a pretty bad way, as in a subsequent invasion could wipe them out. Muslims would be dancing in the streets across the world, but doing nothing more. At this point, would it be worth it to attack the Muslim world and get all those Muslims who are dancing in the streets to come attack you? I'm not a genius at military affairs, but I do know that giving your enemy millions of more troops is generally a bad idea.
This issue also stands if a country is threatening a nuclear strike on Israel. A pre-emptive conventional strike would be one thing, but a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Israel would inflame the world like nothing else.
The second scenario is that Israel sees enough missiles coming its way to completely wipe it out in one blow. That's where we get the spite/revenge issue. Nothing Israel could do would save itself, so there would be no purpose in attacking.
My main point is that a country has to act in accordance with its interests looking forward. If that means going against publicly stated positions, so be it. In these scenarios, I don't think Israel's interests would be served by a nuclear strike.
Max2147
03-24-09, 10:51 PM
Please go and make your arguments with both China and Russia. Put your muddled logic into their thinking. Please tell them their deterrence capabilities are immoral, idiocy, and simply worthless theories. Go and convince them first. Publish articles in People's daily and Pravda outlining your thinkings of unnecessary holocaust. Write letters to both the Kremlin and the dictator Hu. I'm not suicidal. And I also understand what has kept the major powers from coming to blows for decades. So until you can convince these potential hostile powers of your logic, and they decide not to have mass destruction capabilities, we need the same with the willingness to act if necessary. If anybody launches a nuclear strike on my nation or conducts mass destruction strikes on her interests in anyway resulting in millions of deaths of our people, I expect the Trident D5's and Minuteman 3's to be flying. And I expect wholesale destruction of their societies. Their societies continued existence has no justification at that point in my mind. Harsh but true. If they want to survive, they shouldn't strike. Simple to understand.
We have true deterrence as long as we don't allow this type of muddled thinking into our policies. Why is it that people in Western Europe have become so suicidal and lacking in any understanding of what deterrence is? I'm not accusing you of anything Bewolf, but this type of thinking is not conducive to any type of national security, and it's usually a European that thinks this way.
The US vs. Russia and China is completely different than the Israel issue. First, unlike Iran (as explained above) both would have a substantial reserve nuclear strike capability. Also, wiping out the entire US in a first strike might be difficult, considering the size of the country (we're a bit bigger than Israel).
But there are still holes in the deterrence. A nuclear war between the US and Russia/China would almost certainly not come instantly, it would be the end of a long escalation.
One of my professors told us stories of his involvement in nuclear wargames during the Reagan Administration. He said in one of them he was on the blue team, with Cap Weinberger playing the President. In that scenario, the Soviets attacked Western Europe and other American allies, but stayed away from nukes initially. In return, the US and its allies didn't use nukes. Eventually nukes showed up on the battlefield, and pretty soon IRBM's and MRBM's were flying around Europe and East Asia. However, both the US and USSR were very careful not to strike each other. In that scenario, the blue team advisors couldn't convince Cap to press the button and order an all-out nuclear attack on the Soviets. It was only after the Soviets started systematically wiping out every single American ally with nukes that he finally went ahead.
There was another wargame that tried to simulate the nucelar escalation. In that one, one side tried a limited nuclear strike on the other, only hitting a few key targets. The response was an all-out Armageddon strike, complete with the final message "May you burn in Hell as you burn on Earth."
All I'm saying is that when push comes to shove, following through with that policy might not be the best thing for Israel or the world. There's nothing wrong with having one policy in public and having another one in private.
Max, your theory would have merit if it were up to just one person but it's not. Nuclear war protocols are decided, and carried out, by a lot of people.
And I still think you seriously overestimate Muslim solidarity. Especially between the Persians and the Arabs.
Your right Beowulf - the smart thing to do would be to lay down your arms, beg that the attacker stop vaporizing you and hope for the best right? :nope:
You go right ahead and turn all french, but the idea here is that if the other guy decides to nuke you - why the heck would you just roll over and die - when you could extract a measure of cost from your opponent? After all - if they wipe you out then they can just keep marching on to world domination... unless of course you do the surviving rest of humanity a favor and take out the problem... because sooner or later - someone will.
You are missing the point, Captain. In general, I am a pacifist, but that does not blind me to how the world works and, given human nature, that wars are unavoidable at times and propper precaucions have to be made to ensure national survival.
However, this equation goes to rubble once nuclear weapons come into play. In this case utter and complete destruction is guaranteed anyways. I can't imagine any scenario justifiying the usage of nuclear devices. Their purpose is not to win a war, but to completly destroy the enemy who in return will do the same to the country that started it. The result is only losers. And, this is also aimed at August, who obviously failed to see that I didn't target anybody in particular here, but the mere concept of nuclear weapons and theories in regard to their usage, that is stupid.
Let me clarify. Deterrance, given two nations possess nuclear weapons and given human nature (China, Russia, Nazi Germany, etc.), makes sense. Very morbid sense, but sense nevertheless.
Sticking to this concept, however, once one side has started a nuclear onslought, just to maintain "believeability", that doesn't make sense.
And why? Because millions of innicent ppl, in the worst case humankind itself, is sacrificed to rather pitiful ideologic and nationalistic quarrels and theories.
And Sea Demon, this is aimed at all nations and individuals possessing and threatenting to use nuclear wepaons in whatever scenario. Where there russians or chinese in here, be sure I'd give them even more of a finger in this. Germany was frontline country. We would have been the first to be completly obliterated in the case of war, no matter who started it. In such a scenario communism or capitalism, freedom or opression, zionism or islam, becomes pretty much meaningless.
Sea Demon
03-25-09, 04:07 PM
And Sea Demon, this is aimed at all nations and individuals possessing and threatenting to use nuclear wepaons in whatever scenario. Where there russians or chinese in here, be sure I'd give them even more of a finger in this. Germany was frontline country. We would have been the first to be completly obliterated in the case of war, no matter who started it. In such a scenario communism or capitalism, freedom or opression, zionism or islam, becomes pretty much meaningless.
Ok. Fair enough Bewolf. I understand what you're saying. And I am at least happy to see you do understand the realities of human nature and the fundamental reality of deterrence as a principle. Even if you don't like it or cannot see the rationale of counterstriking. Which is where the value in deterence lies. It makes complete sense to me. I expect full retaliation if pressed. Survival of our civilization and people is what I seek, not some form of ideology. I seek to deter but understand that our policy of following through with the annihilation of the enemy is the most important part of this principle. Deterrence doesn't exist in any form without it. I believe that any hostile nation who has destroyed us, has no right to exist themselves. Makes total sense to me in this mad world. And I expect US strategic warfighting to match.
And I do want to address your following statement:
Their purpose is not to win a war, but to completly destroy the enemy who in return will do the same to the country that started it.This is where you need to understand something. Their value does not lie in destruction, but in deterring enemy action. Actually their purpose in our military forces is to prevent major warfare. Not destroy other socieities. They are to deter and prevent a hostile power from destroying us. But they cannot be effective in that role if we are not completely committed to their use in their practical theory of major warfare. And it has worked for decades. Like Strategic Air Command used to say...."Peace is our Profession". Again, this is counter-intuitive to many in that SAC constantly prepared for war using intercontinental bombers and ICBM's. But yet, the end result was peace by demonstrating overwhelming nuclear weapons capabilities. The Soviet Union were checked till the end.
You say your country would have been the first to be annihilated. I agree totally. But you must understand that the very deterrence, and the total committment to counterstrike that you find so illogical and idiotic prevented the Soviets from rolling over your country and destroying your society.
Max2147
03-25-09, 05:10 PM
Their value does not lie in destruction, but in deterring enemy action.
That's sort of the point. The entire value of a nuclear arsenal lies in its deterrent capability. Once that deterrence has failed, the nuclear arsenal doesn't have much of a use anymore.
When deterrence is effective, it's great. During the Cold War the Germans and the Western Europeans in general were strongly opposed to nuclear disarmament proposals or arms reduction deals between the US and USSR because it would increase the possibility of a hugely destructive conventional war in Europe.
My point is that once deterrence has failed, you need to choose your actions based on what's best looking forward, not what your deterrence doctrine. In some cases that would involve a nuclear retaliatory strike, but in others it wouldn't.
That's sort of the point. The entire value of a nuclear arsenal lies in its deterrent capability. Once that deterrence has failed, the nuclear arsenal doesn't have much of a use anymore.
When deterrence is effective, it's great. During the Cold War the Germans and the Western Europeans in general were strongly opposed to nuclear disarmament proposals or arms reduction deals between the US and USSR because it would increase the possibility of a hugely destructive conventional war in Europe.
My point is that once deterrence has failed, you need to choose your actions based on what's best looking forward, not what your deterrence doctrine. In some cases that would involve a nuclear retaliatory strike, but in others it wouldn't.
That is the point. As long there is no doomsday machine, which would make the impossible possible, the final descision still lies within humans and their responsebility for the fate of the world, a responsebility way more important then even the destruction of a society or a way of life. It even effects parts of the world that have nothing to do with the eventual war.
I am not debating deterrance here. I am not argueing upholding the image of complete determination to the outside. And I am also aware that to achieve this goal admitting a lack of that determination is not an option.
But whoever makes this final descision hopefully won't act by the rules, but by his conscience.
CaptainHaplo
03-25-09, 07:25 PM
Bewolf,
I understand your argument - but here is the problem. If you actually HAVE a different policy - and your "tested" and do not respond - you just invited MORE destruction upon yourself because you would be seen as weak.
I also differ in the matter of the purpose of Nuclear Weapons being designed purely for annihilation. The fact is tactical nukes not only exist - but are the majority of nukes held by the "minor" nuclear powers. Long range, very high yield devices are beyond the capability of most nations. That is not to say they should be dismissed.
The use of tactical nukes as a deterrent - or a vengeance strike as required - is not out to demolish the world or humanity, nor would it. They are designed to maximize damage at specific points - and in the question of Israel and its hostile region mates - your talking capital cities, economic (resource or industrialized) areas, military strongpoints, etc. No need to waste a nuke on empty areas where just a bunch of wandering people are. The idea of a nuclear deterrent is the ability to cause massive damage to a target you otherwise couldnt hit.
This is totally different than the "cold war" - which was based on nothing BUT the doctrine known as MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.
And for the record - Chem and Bio attacks are actually more deadly - since they are harder to protect a civilian population from the effects compared to a nuke.
Sea Demon
03-25-09, 11:23 PM
That's sort of the point. The entire value of a nuclear arsenal lies in its deterrent capability. Once that deterrence has failed, the nuclear arsenal doesn't have much of a use anymore.
When deterrence is effective, it's great.
In some cases that would involve a nuclear retaliatory strike, but in others it wouldn't.
Well, in principle, you are correct to a point. But the deal is if the enemy knows your policy is a guaranteed counterstrike in kind, as it was in the Cold War, deterrence is assured. History definitely supports that argument. Anything else is pure speculative "theory". In practice, the Soviet Union understood a nuclear counterstrike was a guarantee as US policy, and so they acted accordingly. They had no alternative but to check themselves. Unfortunately people are now forgetting these things.
In your last statement, I think all responses are surely measured. Would a tactical nuke launched by Russia at one of our bases in the Middle East justify wiping them totally out of existence? And in turn inviting the same for us? Of course not. How about a nuclear missile strike against one of our carriers killing more than 7,000 USN sailors? I don't know, but there should be a response of some kind to what would no doubt be a heinous act of war. And in terms of the macro scale, of course 250-300 ICBM's headed our way is something I would wish to see retaliated against in kind. You could never convince me otherwise. It's not about hate or revenge. But it is about justification. If this occurs, the enemy nation should be annihilated totally within the timefframe to do it (30 minutes or so??). Any potential surviving leaders should no longer have a country or people to govern if they made the error in striking out mine. In effect, they should cease to be a civilization. They made the choice to indirectly wipe themselves off the Earth. There is simply no justification to allow them survive in this case. Deterrence cannot exist without this absolute guarantee. And so it is.
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
03-26-09, 12:30 AM
Well, in principle, you are correct to a point. But the deal is if the enemy knows your policy is a guaranteed counterstrike in kind, as it was in the Cold War, deterrence is assured. History definitely supports that argument. Anything else is pure speculative "theory". In practice, the Soviet Union understood a nuclear counterstrike was a guarantee as US policy, and so they acted accordingly. They had no alternative but to check themselves. Unfortunately people are now forgetting these things.
Actually, this is also speculative.
In your last statement, I think all responses are surely measured. Of course 250-300 ICBM's headed our way is something I would wish to see retaliated against in kind. You could never convince me otherwise. It's not about hate or revenge. But it is about justification. If this occurs, the enemy nation should be annihilated totally within the timefframe to do it (30 minutes or so??). Any potential surviving leaders should no longer have a country or people to govern if they made the error in striking out mine. In effect, they should cease to be a civilization. They made the choice to indirectly wipe themselves off the Earth. There is simply no justification to allow them survive in this case. Deterrence cannot exist without this absolute guarantee. And so it is.
I won't. It makes no difference. I MIGHT shoot ICBMs at anything whose disappearance might stop him from throwing another 200 SLBMs at me. But I suppose you are talking "countervalue" retaliatory strikes here, and frankly, it is morally entirely unjustifiable, unless your moral system consists solely of "an eye for an eye, even if it means my other one as well".
It is one thing to put on a good show of MADness to increase the chance of deterrence working. But once it doesn't work and the ICBMs are coming, even a "counterforce" strike is a risk unless you are certain it can get there first.
And I say "MIGHT" in the first para because my retaliatory strike might be the thing that causes him to throw those 200 SLBMs at me and it might fire off before my missiles get him, wheraes otherwise he might just be happy he "won" the nuclear exchange and keep those 200 as a reserve. Sure, keeping them in reserve means he can throw them at someone else, but a possibility is better than a certainty.
As to whether it is "right" to leave leaders that have fired off nukes in power as the victor, well, probably not. On the other hand, at least THEY were presumably firing their missiles to achieve some worthwhile national policy, while the retaliator in a counter value strike is not achieving anything beyond killing some of the enemy - in comparison the attacker looks like a SAINT with perfect justification for his actions.
Sea Demon
03-26-09, 12:50 AM
Actually, this is also speculative.
Actually, it is a historically supported fact. But anyway, your other paragraph I leave merely as your own opinion. Lots of speculation there as well, with absolutely no basis in actual practiced national policy. And I simply don't agree. I'm hoping the leadership in countries that have these weapons think more rationally than what you describe. Historically, they have shown more reality than this. I think many of the leaders who've posessed such weaponry have understood what they have at their disposal and what their true purpose and potential uses are.
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
03-26-09, 03:06 AM
Actually, it is a historically supported fact.
"Historically supported fact"? According to you, deterrence has 2 components.
1) Putting on a good show BEFORE the attack that counterstrike is guaranteed.
2) That the counterstrike is guaranteed AFTER the enemy fires anyway.
There is a correlation that suggests 1 works. 2? When did the enemy fire so you can demonstrate the counterstrike or its value?
You can NEVER actually guarantee that you'll fire a counterstrike - by the time you can, you've fired it. Before that, all you can do is put on a good show.
But anyway, your other paragraph I leave merely as your own opinion. Lots of speculation there as well, with absolutely no basis in actual practiced national policy.
"Practiced National Policy" so far never managed to exceed the "put on a good show" part. What happens next or its pros/cons is ultimately speculation.
And I simply don't agree. I'm hoping the leadership in countries that have these weapons think more rationally than what you describe. Historically, they have shown more reality than this. I think many of the leaders who've posessed such weaponry have understood what they have at their disposal and what their true purpose and potential uses are.
How can one sink lower in rationality, morality or reality than to, after deterrence failed, go through with the counterstrike that was intended to be a bluff, for the sole purpose of attriting some enemies?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.