View Single Post
Old 07-10-08, 06:29 AM   #5
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 42,783
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0


Default

Is War With Iran Necessary?

translates into:

Do I accept a nuclear armed Iran yes or no? Do I accept nuclear proliferation benefitting terror organisations?

the latter is my primary concern. I never seriously believed in Iran sacrificng itself by reaching out with nuclear weapons itself.

However, a nuclear armed Iran, if if it does not use them, and just commits itself to proliferation (which I take as a given), will shift balances in the region and in the world, making the present ways of adressing tensions and diplomatic problems as well as resisting the pressure of the Islamic world much more difficult if not impossible. the mere threat of Islamic organisation to use nukes already would potentially be enough to paralyse the West and leave it vulnerable, if not defenseless to their demands.

Without force, Iran simply will not give up its nuclear military ambitions. It will not happen, believe it or not, it will not happen. That simple. Period. I do not believe that report of the program being stopped for a single minute. Not even for a second I believed it. It is illogical from an Iranian perspective to give it up. I do not expect an enemy to act stupid, or illogical.

So this is the question it comes down to indeed: do you accept a nuclear armed Iran? Sounds almost harmless and simple a question, but it is complex and has a lot of hidden intricacies.

I personally think it already was a very huge mistake to not find nout about the Pakistn program in time, and see how Pakistan messes up the whole region, far beyond its own borders. If it were possible to board a time machien, I would be willing to go back in time and destroy the nation before it built nulcear weapons, but that is not possible anymore, obviously. I do not want that bad example to be a story repeating itself. also, nukes in iran will mean nothing else but a nuclear arms race in the gulf region in total. Saudi Arabia alraedy has started first steps with a nuclear program years ago. More slamic nations having nukes. More threat of nulcear proliferation. How much can the world handle of that, before the sh!t happens? How long will the world's luck last, when everything is done to make it run out?

Which brings us to the next question:

Do I accept to deny Iran gaining nukes by using nukes against Iran myself?

Because I take it as a given that with conventional means the program can at best be delayed, but not stopped or prevented.

We should use as little force as possible but as much force as needed to prevent Iran getting nuclear arms. No matter what it costs. Preventing Iranian nukes must be our only top priority, and we shall not accept foul compromise - it will cost us more than what we have saved in the first. And that will necessarily include the need to use small nukes on selected target areas. While their immediate effect in taking out deep hidden research bunkers may be possible to save cities, towns and the civilian population, the lpongterm effect from contamionation of soil, groundwater and air remains, so even if the Pentagon speaks entzhusiastically of mini-nukes as bunker-busters, don't be mislead: it will remain to be an extremely dirty affair in the long range. However, if you are not willing to go all the way, don't start war action: nothing worse than to kill and destroy all for nothing. If you go for it, do what needs to be done, without mercy, and go all the way. There is no in-between.

So make damn sure you are sure about your motives.


With the exception of Israel I do not see any Western nation seriously willing the use of nukes in Iran. And that is the Iranian gamble: they know that western politicians will not accept the use of nukes, and will be afraid of the population at home. That's why they are pressing on: it is their winning strategy, and the strongest move they have: it will win them what they want. Sanctions they can easily aford. conventional strikes they can easily survive, and even strike back in various different means. since I cannot see a military operation like I figured, I do see a nuclear armed Iran in the future. That will be the reality we will have to deal with. there will also be nuclear blackmailing of the West soem time later. This is the most likely scenario in my thinking, and eventually we will realise that the price has been too high. but then it will be too late for us to correct it.

Maybe we should do like that danish ministre once proposed during the cold war: he wanted to set up a telephone answering machine linked with the kremlin, and a tape saying: "Welcome to Denmark, we surrender."
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 07-10-08 at 06:57 AM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote