Abizaid says we could live with a "nucular" Iran

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 18 2007, 12:55 AM) [snapback]514172[/snapback]</div>

Step 1. Call Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the "Axis of Evil".
Step 2. Invade Iraq.
Step 3. Watch North Korea develop and "test" a nuclear device.
Step 4. Wonder why Iran might want a nuclear device...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(n8kwx @ Sep 18 2007, 03:50 PM) [snapback]514175[/snapback]</div>

thankyou, well said. Nothing to add.

 

a couple of points:
1. Yes, our military strength does make a nuclear attack on the US a suicide mission, and despite what we may think of them, the leaders of Iran are leaders because they want power, not because they're suicidal. Launching a nuclear strike against the US would be suicide, or if nothing else would remove all their power, which they won't want to do.

2. Yes, a preemptive strike is not the best idea for dealing with the situation. As we've seen with Iraq, wars in that region should be avoided. If you want more on that one, check some of the hundreds of posts about Iraq on the board...

3. What the retired General didn't say was that the threat of Iran going nuclear isn't to the US, but the results could very well effect us. Iran might be willing to use a nuclear bomb against their "enemies" in the area, which could have dramatic effects on the world wide economy. Imagine that they use one, and irradiate half the oil fields in the middle east as a result... that wouldn't be an attack on the US, but it would still devastate our economy and country.

So with all that said, diplomatic and economic methods should be used to attempt Iran from going nuclear. Should they develop nuclear arms, it would be in the world's best interest for the existing nuclear powers (us, Russia, France, UK, China, etc) to say in a joint press conference (thus showing everyone that this is a question of world-wide security, not just the desire of one country to flex it's muscle...) that any detonation of a nuclear device that originated in Iran would be treated as an act of war against all nations, and an equal response would be visited upon Iran.

Such a conviction would show the leaders of Iran that using a nuclear device anywhere would be a suicide mission. And as stated in my first point, those leaders are in place because they crave power, and like all politicians, they won't do anything to destroy that power. If they develop a nuclear weapon and we attack because of it, we may push them back into a corner forcing them to use it.

As it's been said, MAD is a stable situation, even though it's a crazy, F'd up one. It becomes both more and less stable when you remove the "M". more, because the weaker power won't act, and less because the stronger power might. In this case, i don't think we have to worry about the second case.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 18 2007, 10:19 AM) [snapback]514248[/snapback]</div>

Question for all you "let Iran go nuclear" believers:

What happens when Iran develops and produces nuclear weapons and delivery systems (beyond humans, ships and commercial airplanes) that have extended ranges including cruise missiles (land, air, and sea based) and ICBM's?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 18 2007, 12:56 PM) [snapback]514340[/snapback]</div>

Yes and really no. Because once they are a nuclear power, what can you do about that. So, the title is what i believe is the mistake. We cannot live with a nuclear iran as much as we could have lived with a nuclear nazi germany or imperial japan or al-qaeda.

so lets all play along to see the fallacy of letting iran go nuclear... what do you guys think would happen with a nuclear iran???

 

Berman, do you really believe that Iran will ever launch a nuclear attack on the US? The entire country would be a pile of radioactive slag before their first bomb hit US soil. As i stated, the leaders are there for one reason: Power. they aren't going to give up that power on some whim.

Do you think Iran could even come close to developing enough of a nuclear arsenal to be a real threat? remember the cold war back in the day? There were far more nuclear missiles pointed at us than Iran could even fit in their borders, yet we still had a somewhat stable peace. You think that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons the same principles that dictated that peace wouldn't apply? If not, please explain why.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 18 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]514389[/snapback]</div>

As a true neocon,Dr Berman is worried about the security of Israel .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Sep 18 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]514389[/snapback]</div>

Yes I do believe in my heart iran would let loose the nuclear dogs either directly or more probably indirectly through a allied terror group like hezbollah.

you make a tragic mistake by operating by the old soviet-american MAD equation --- remember with both of these cultures they treasured life over death. with iran, you are dealing with a culture/religion that prizes and rewards death.

again, answer the question.... iran becomes a nuclear power, what do you think are the immediate and near immediate sequelae?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Sep 18 2007, 02:18 PM) [snapback]514396[/snapback]</div>

I could respond... As a true anti-Semite Mojo could care less if Israel is attacked with nuclear weapons...

but I wouldnt.

I am not worried about Israel. as you might be aware they attacked a nuclear depot deep inside syria about two weeks ago that probably contained materials from NoKo, Iran and possible Iraq.

Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons loaded upon multiple delivery systems - they will use them if necessary. they will also prevent iran from going nuclear in my opinion.

back to reality

what do you think would be the consequences of a nuclear armed iran....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 18 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]514401[/snapback]</div>

Y'know, you're awfully quick to play the anti-Semite card. Considering Mojo has said nothing anti-Semitic, your claim borders on being a personal attack.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 18 2007, 02:49 PM) [snapback]514409[/snapback]</div>

i dont want to get off topic when this is such an easy one to show you guys the errors of your thoughts.

per chance.... how did or why did he bring up Israel and NeoCon when neither were mentioned prior to his post?? once you riddle me that one, you can answer the question:

what would be the consequences of a nuclear armed iran?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 18 2007, 02:50 PM) [snapback]514410[/snapback]</div>

i love the answer a question with a question gig -- try answering my question and then we can answer yours...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 18 2007, 04:00 PM) [snapback]514449[/snapback]</div>

Agreed.

so here goes, again,... please tell me, all of you who support a nuclear armed iran, what you believe the consequences would be upon their acquiring home grown nuclear weapons....

 

Consequences of Iran going Nuclear?
Dr B. is right in that it's Bad. Very bad.
So what? Does anyone have a grand idea to stop it?
There isn't anything we can really do about it other than sabre rattling. Which is exactly what's going on. Dr. B can wish for his Iran conflict all he wants, but it aint gonna happen. Iran holds all the cards. Until we kick our oil habit, we can't do anything about it.

The Abizaid quote should have read "we'll have to live with" not "we could live with". Best we can hope for is an Iranian Chernoble to turn their populace against nulear energy.

Option A: Tip the ME into a regional war, causing oil supply to go into crises mode, causing the western world to shut down economically, until they can slowly rebuild using new energy.

Option B: Develop alternative energy at home so we can wean off oil, and remove the leverage oil gives to ALL of the ME countries. Then we can deal with these kind of issues diplomatically, since they won't hold the cards (oil).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 18 2007, 02:12 PM) [snapback]514460[/snapback]</div>

Better yet, make oil irrelevant and get out of the politics of the region. It's foolish to think that we can just shape the world as we see fit through political/military will.

Dr. B, I don't think anyone here supports a nuclear Iran. No one has said that. However, what we want and what we get are usually two different things. We're going to have to deal with it, like it or not. I don't see there being much we can do about it. What precisely are you proposing we do about it?

 

Abizaid is one of the idiots who have badly mismanaged the war in Iraq.

The danger isn't Iran attacking anyone. The danger is Iran handing off a nuclear device to one of its terrorist proxies, who then puts it in a big cargo container and ships it to New York or LA, where it is touched off.

Harry

 

And that's why we have radiation sniffers.
BTW, it is impossible to have timers for those bombs in such a scenario. They (the terrorists) would have to have someone visually watching the ship at all times to confirm it's arrival and detonate at the right time remotely. Port security is a must because of this.

So let's sell our port management to some middles eastern businessmen!!! Remember that attempt? Brilliant....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Earthling @ Sep 18 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]514476[/snapback]</div>

True, but then they run the risk of

1.) us blaming them and annihilating them.
2.) the terror group deciding to use the device in some other, "unapproved" way.

Either way, they are risking a lot and have no control over the situation. That's what it's all about, too. Control. Iran wants regional hegemony. They can't achieve that through the reckless use of nuclear weapons. In fact, such activities carry with them the strong likelihood that Iran will cease to exist. Iran doesn't want that. Nobody in Iran wants that. Suicide is only useful to them if it furthers their cause.

Burritos, read Flyboys and then tell me if you think that Japan was better off without us using bombs. It was the right move, given the choices before us (none of which were pretty).