Possible solution to Dr. Berman's Iranian Nuclear concerns

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 7 2007, 07:51 AM) [snapback]536152[/snapback]</div>

My, you do seem to be mis-informed. Remember the Iraqi underground facilities that Saddam used to hide out in during the 2003 war? If U.S. intel (or Israeli intel for that matter) is so omnipotent, how come we couldn't reach out and touch Saddam? Even when the U.S. got close, it wasn't close enough.

Also, the Syrian facility was above ground. If you want to build a below ground facility and don't want anyone to know about it, do the construction at night (or, during the day under real good camouflage). Why do you think the original developmental flight testing on the F117 and B2 was done at night? So the Soviets would be clueless....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 7 2007, 07:51 AM) [snapback]536152[/snapback]</div>

But you do need to destroy the ones that are making the bomb parts.... And guess what, those will be the ones whose locations are the most closely guarded state secrets....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 7 2007, 07:51 AM) [snapback]536152[/snapback]</div>

Now you are adopting the tactics of the neocons. Can't effectively advocate your position? Challenge the patriotism of the opponent. Perhaps it is you who are un-patriotic by advocating endless war. After Iran, who will be next? China? Russia? Or????

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Nov 7 2007, 02:37 PM) [snapback]536279[/snapback]</div>

a big difference between hiding a person underground and a nuclear facility?

I am assuming you think that they[Iran] are pursuing peaceful applications of nuclear technology?
also
Is Iran a force for good or evil on the Planet? Do they support terrorism? Would you trust them with nuclear weapons?

 

Do we support terrorism (i'll give you a hint: In another thread you agreed that we do!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 7 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]536321[/snapback]</div>

I am not referring to the spider hole Saddam was pulled out of. There were rather elaborate underground bunkers that were constructed over a period of years that Saddam was using as hideouts during the 2003 war.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 7 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]536321[/snapback]</div>

I don't know that they are; I don't know that they aren't.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 7 2007, 12:44 PM) [snapback]536321[/snapback]</div>

I am being realistic and trying to point out the challenges to a military option. We have one cesspool in Iraq; we don't need another one (which would be infinitely larger) in Iran. I happen to subscribe to the concept of exhausting consensus diplomacy before resorting to a military option. Even with the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts, I am conservative about the application of military efforts. Fools (and neocons) rush in where angels dare to tread.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Nov 7 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]536329[/snapback]</div>

+1.

But the name-calling is a traditional and well worn neocon tactic - can't effectively advocate your position? Call the other side evil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 7 2007, 12:31 AM) [snapback]535948[/snapback]</div>

The US is the only country in the world to have used a nuclear weapon. We used it on a non-nuclear power. If anything I would think that logically this would make the US the country least trustworty to posses nuclear weapons.

The US also has a long history of supporting oppressive governments, terrorists, and insurgent groups. These groups just happen to be fighting against governments or organizations that the US doesn't like. The tactics are the same, only the labels are different. We also have a a long history of these groups/individuals turning on us once the primary opponent has been defeated. The two most recent examples would be the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Take for example the Taliban. When they were fighting a guerrilla war against the Soviets they were "Freedom Fighters". Now when they use the same tactics to attack the US and international forces in their country they are "Terrorists". The only difference is which super power invaded their country.

If supporting terrorist organizations revokes a nations right to posses nuclear weapons then the US does not qualify.


Dr. B,

I knew you wouldn't answer my questions because they represent a kind of logic that is completely foreign to you. However, I'll try again with just the basic question, Why the double standard?

Why must Iran allow the IAEA to inspect all their facilities when no established nuclear power that has a seat on the U.N. Security Council allows their own facilities to be inspected?

Why does a nation that we are hostile to such as Iran have to sign the NPT and submit fully to inspections by the IAEA when India refuses to do both of these things but not only doesn't have international sanctions against them but is getting nuclear technology from the US?

A nation or organization must apply the rules and standard of conduct equally. If you don't the rules don't matter and nation or organization loses all credibility.


Notice I haven't even mentioned whether I believe that a nuclear Iran is good or bad. This is by design because this subjective opinion has no relevance to the my basic line of reasoning. I was trying to elevate the discussion beyond the normal rants of "Good vs. Evil" "Us vs Them" to the level of rational reasoning.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Nov 7 2007, 06:53 PM) [snapback]536414[/snapback]</div>

Well put.
Lets not forget that the USA was established by Terrorists.
The American Revolutionaries would be undeserving of Geneva Convention protection according to Dr Berman.
They would have been deserving of torture.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Nov 7 2007, 03:53 PM) [snapback]536414[/snapback]</div>

Are you suggesting that the United States should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those two bombs expedited the end of the second World War and saved an estimated 1,000,000 lives of American and Allied troops who would have been killed in the inevitable invasion of Japan had the Japanese not surrendered.

That makes your arguments as hollow as Dr. Berman's. Iran is the only nation that you listed which has threatened to eradicate another nation off the face of the Earth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 7 2007, 06:02 PM) [snapback]536478[/snapback]</div>

True that. Purple Hearts that were stockpiled for the invasion of Japan are being handed out for wounds sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 7 2007, 10:02 PM) [snapback]536478[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I find the dropping of the Atomic bombs on civilian centers to be morally reprehensible. I recently watched a documentary about the making of the atomic bombs. Once the first nuclear test was completed (Trinity), the scientists that created the bomb suggested the second bomb "Little Boy" be used in a demonstration off the coast of Japan to show the Japanese leadership the awesome power of atomic bomb. Truman instead sided with the military commanders and ordered it dropped on Hiroshima. We will never know if the sight of an atomic blast alone, without the deaths of 100,000 people would have been sufficient to cause the Japanese to surrender. I think it was worth a shot. The US had time on our side as the Japanese were by that time without a Navy or Air Force and as such were unable to make offensive strikes but were simply preparing to defend the mainland to the end. But the Russians declared war on Japan and we didn't want to have to split Japan with them like we split Europe. The dropping of the atomic bombs was not only the end of WWII but also the opening shot of the cold war.

It is interesting to me that you make no mention of the millions of Japanese lives that were also saved by dropping the atomic bombs. In all of the island hopping battles, Japanese lose of life was 2x-3x that of the American forces. To me that would be a better but still flawed argument. (We killed 250K to save 2.5M Japanese, they should thank us for nuking them.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 7 2007, 10:02 PM) [snapback]536478[/snapback]</div>

How does discussing national sovereignty and equal application of standards without the emotion of such labels as "Evil" make my argument "hollow".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Nov 7 2007, 10:48 PM) [snapback]536541[/snapback]</div>

I think your point about "demonstrating" the bomb before using it is interesting, and one that has been debated for decades. some quick issues with that that you did not mention...(your point about saving millions of Japanese lives is very good and true - the devastation that a full US invasion of Japan would have wrought would have been spectacular.

- I am not sure the amount of time required for us to build another bomb including if we had sufficient nuclear material (it is not like we had thousands of centrifuges going like Iran
- it would have given the Japanese a heads up and they would have been able to adjust their defensive measures making it more difficult for a bombing mission on a real target
- there are factors that were probably taken into account that we have no appreciation for - including war fatigue on American forces, the already huge amounts of KIA's we suffered, etc
- the amount of men and material needed to invade Japan would have been astronomical - making D-Day look like a walk in the park.
- the potential landing sites to invade Japan were not, are not, as extensive as they were when we invaded europe - just the planning and staging phases of the operation would have presented huge targets of opportunity for the Japanese.
- although the Japanese might have been on the defensive, it is far easier to protect and extend force close to your home shoreline. not to mention the added psychological advantage of hyping up the Japanese to defend their homeland.
- suicide missions that wreaked havoc far from their homeland would have potentially been devastating
- the Japanese had programs themselves, we had little intelligence on - they could have potentially reaped huge technological gains from a dummy explosion.
- you can probably add a few more - i got to go -

Either way, i still stand behind President Truman's decision. That was one tough call and for him to make that call i will not second guess it half a century later.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 9 2007, 08:28 AM) [snapback]537203[/snapback]</div>

You accept those justifications as sound and moral.
Just realize that similar justifications can be used by anyone to nuke the civilian population of the USA or Israel.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 9 2007, 08:28 AM) [snapback]537203[/snapback]</div>

We had two bombs that were ready to go at the beginning of August (and they were dropped). There was one more that could have been ready by the 3d week of August. And more ready for Sept & Oct.

From Wikipedia, courtesy of The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II, A Collection of Primary Sources, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162. The George Washington University