Archive

Iran: What SHOULD we do?

  • O-Trap
    I was asking a question last night amongst a group of friends, and I never got an answer, so I thought I might bring it here.

    Many on here believe that Iran should not be allowed to develop full nuclear capabilities. This has seemed to be the primary topic regarding foreign policy right now, so I think the topic warrants addressing, but my question is this:

    In what way should America attempt to prevent Iran from developing this capability? Many have said that we should not sit by and let them reach the ability to create a nuclear weapon, which answers the "what SHOULDN'T we do" question, but I'm curious what we SHOULD do, then.

    Has anyone heard of a feasible plan of action on this? If so, what is it?
  • Thread Bomber
    I think we should give them a demonstration of what a real multiple warhead ICBM works like. They wouldn't even have to leave their homeland to see it :)
  • Cleveland Buck
    Well, our economy and probably our currency as well will collapse almost as soon as we invade them, so that should really be off the table. Sanctions and tough talk have done a lot of good. The only thing left is to leave them alone. They know if they attack Israel we will wipe them from the face of the earth. They know if they use a nuclear weapon on Israel that their homeland will be a parking lot. They haven't aggressively attacked anyone for thousands of years. I doubt they will start if we leave them alone. If we stop oppressing their people with sanctions, they can try to do something about the oppression they face from their own government.
  • sleeper
    Trade with them. Problem solved.
  • tk421
    Nothing. What right do we have to tell what other countries can and can not do? We need to stop being the world police. Iran knows that if they attack anyone, they are dead.
  • pmoney25
    Where is the assumption that IF Iran gets a nuke that they will use it immediately on Israel coming from? First off they would have 1-4 nukes while Israel has hundreds. Also if Iran were to use a Nuke they have to know that they would receive a retaliation the likes which have never been seen, not only from Israel but from the rest of the world for the most part.
  • tk421
    I don't see the big deal with any country going after nuclear technology. Everyone has to know that the country to use the bomb is going to get bombed back to the stone age itself. I'd be more worried about terrorist organizations getting the bomb into this country through our very well "protected" southern border.
  • FatHobbit
    tk421;963785 wrote:I'd be more worried about terrorist organizations getting the bomb into this country through our very well "protected" southern border.
    IMO it's important to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons technology so the terrorists have less opportunity to get access.
  • FatHobbit
    This seems like a good question for p_town, although I don't think I've seen him post for a while.
  • O-Trap
    FatHobbit;963811 wrote:IMO it's important to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons technology so the terrorists have less opportunity to get access.
    Inasmuch as you believe they should be "stopped," what would you suggest as an appropriate course of action to do so?

    Also, are you for global nuclear disarmament then?
  • FatHobbit
    O-Trap;963835 wrote:Inasmuch as you believe they should be "stopped," what would you suggest as an appropriate course of action to do so?

    Also, are you for global nuclear disarmament then?
    I'm not sure "stopped" is the right word. I don't know if I want us to go around attacking sovereign nations that have not attacked us first. But I do think it is in our best interest to keep nuclear technology from spreading.

    I'm not sure if I am for 100% nuclear disarmament, but I don't really think we need more than enough weapons to destroy the planet. What's the point? And the fewer weapons there are, the less chance some kook gets ahold of them.
  • majorspark
    I posted my response on this thread because it is more relevent to this situation.
    O-Trap;962913 wrote:This is a subtle fallacy of excluded middle. Not being hated doesn't mean being liked.

    Also, I would suggest that not being hated is probably one of the surest ways to prevent international attacks ... which I think would be part of providing for the common defense ... and which I would HOPE is near the top of our "best interests."
    In the lead up to WWII I don't believe the Japanese people hated us. Their government did eventually attack us because we were using our foreign economic policy to deprive them of materials to build and run their war machine. Now maybe we could have traded with them and they would have left us alone. At least until they established their Pacific empire. I would argue that our foreign policy meddling was within constitutional powers of congress and in the context of self defense.
    O-Trap;962913 wrote:As far as inaction goes, can think of a couple that might have actually hurt us. For actions, I can think of multiples of that..
    The results of inaction are more difficult to judge.
    O-Trap;962913 wrote:Our Constitution ... the law to which our federal government was created to adhere ... gives zero room for just doing whatever is in our best interest except as it pertains to defending our soil. As such, to allow our government as much authority as you seem to be okay with is essentially to say that the government is now exempt from parts of the Constitution, purely on the basis that "that's how the world works.".
    Let me point this out. Sometimes I comment on federal government policy I believe should have gone through the amendment process, without noting my deeper held belief that it is unconstitutional. I may at times comment on how things are and not how they should be. For example: I have suggested changes to Social Security policy without noting my deeper held belief as to its constitutionality because it is what it is. When a deeper argument about the constitution and SS is brewing I will comment accordingly. I would say the same about direct foreign aid (cash).

    Now under Article 1 Section 8 congress has the following powers to adress these situations and that those powers must be used to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the US.
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations
    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and WaterTo raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;     To provide and maintain a Navy;
    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

    I was making a general comment. The world works in a certain way and we have to find away to operate in that world without compromising the constituion. I would need specific foreign policy actions to comment on whether they meet constitutional merit.
    O-Trap;962913 wrote:That's a very "big government" position, I'd say.
    I would argue that any federal power is by definition a "big government" power even those powers granted it by the constitution. The feds do assume a lot of powers not granted it.
  • iclfan2
    If their Nukes can't reach us I don't care. We don't have time or money to put troops on the ground there, especially because Pakistan is a bigger threat to our troops.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Pakistan is a bigger threat because we give their dictator billions of dollars while we bomb their citizens.

    As for Iran, they see how North Korea can mouth off to us and act a fool without us invading them because they have a nuclear weapon. After hearing our government beat the war drums for 30 years of course they want a nuclear weapon. Once they get it they know we won't be invading them. If they then use it, it defeats the purpose.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    pmoney25;963783 wrote:Where is the assumption that IF Iran gets a nuke that they will use it immediately on Israel coming from? First off they would have 1-4 nukes while Israel has hundreds. Also if Iran were to use a Nuke they have to know that they would receive a retaliation the likes which have never been seen, not only from Israel but from the rest of the world for the most part.
    The assumption is that Iran will accept MAD-Mutual assured destruction-knowing that if they use any weapon, they will themselves be destroyed. That then leaves the state to act rationally. The ting is, it is unknown if Iran accepts that and accepts MAD.
    Plus, the concept of MAD is really just between the U.S./ allies and Soviets. It is unknown if it can be appealed now in a multipolar world with multiple nuke states in a region.

    Plus, if Iran gets it, the problem is, the rest of the region will get. Saudi Arabia and Turkey both have stated that if Iran goes nuclear, so will they. Then, the region that has the most conflict will have nukes. That is something no one wants.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    FatHobbit;963817 wrote:This seems like a good question for p_town, although I don't think I've seen him post for a while.
    I've been busier than shit haha. Started a new job as a contractor a few months ago, love it, just busy.

    Anyways, first the IAEA report released today says nothing new, just in greater detail. It's important to show how shady Iran has been for years now.
    What can we do, continue what we have been doing, but better.
    1. Continue economic sanctions that target material needed for uranium and enrichment, that includes metal, material, neutron detectors, etc.
    2. Target individuals and banks that are linked to the nuclear program.
    3. Utilize covert and cyber weapons like the Stuxnet to delay the program.
    4. Create a defense network around Iran-arm regional states with missile defenses, coastal weapons, and the ability to proactively defend.
    5. Establish a plan that if Iran test a nuke, that there is a coordinated response, with diplomacy and force if needed.
    6. Do not, do not, allow Israel to bomb them. If that happen, game is over and Iran has all the momentum.
  • Cleveland Buck
    ptown_trojans_1;964253 wrote: Plus, if Iran gets it, the problem is, the rest of the region will get. Saudi Arabia and Turkey both have stated that if Iran goes nuclear, so will they. Then, the region that has the most conflict will have nukes. That is something no one wants.
    Maybe that's what they need then. I bet there won't be so much conflict if they know their will be Sunni and Shia and Kurd and Israeli nukes flying all about and wiping the entire region off of the map.
  • majorspark
    One thing people have to understand about using a nuke against the state of Israel aside from MAD. Israel is a narrow strip of land. Dropping a Nuke on any major population center in Israel incinerates Palestine as well. Not to mention the fallout on neighboring Arab countries.

    Iran wants Nukes for political clout and bargaining power. They will be able to extort concessions from the west and their Arab neighbors to the west.
  • dwccrew
    majorspark;964029 wrote:

    In the lead up to WWII I don't believe the Japanese people hated us. Their government did eventually attack us because we were using our foreign economic policy to deprive them of materials to build and run their war machine. Now maybe we could have traded with them and they would have left us alone. At least until they established their Pacific empire. I would argue that our foreign policy meddling was within constitutional powers of congress and in the context of self defense.
    I guess other countries should have attacked the US then and not allowed the US to establish its empire just like how we did not allow Japan to setup their Pacific empire.
  • majorspark
    Cleveland Buck;964269 wrote:Maybe that's what they need then. I bet there won't be so much conflict if they know their will be Sunni and Shia and Kurd and Israeli nukes flying all about and wiping the entire region off of the map.
    Your statement sounds ridiculous. But in reality no nation wants or is willing to chance the use of conventional forces directly against a nation that has nukes with the purpose of achieving its total surrender. The fear that a desparate regime in its death throes could unleash its nuclear arsenal brings an adversary pause.

    Without the fear of a nuclear exchange a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations would have been far more likely. North Korea figured this out. Its been quite a bargain for them. They extort aid. Probe the Souths resolve with limited attacks on diputed areas. Knowing the South will never risk their major population centers to respond with any kind of major conventioanal force and they will not allow the US to put them at that risk.

    Iran is seeking the same. Ptown is right other Gulf nations will seek to nuke up. The USA will not always and forever be the power player in the world. They know we can't afford it much longer. The fear is with more nations nuking up it will increase the chances of one nutbag sparking a massive nuclear exchange. Or maybe everyone will be scared shitless of each other and we will have finally attained world peace. I'll go with the former rather than the latter.
  • majorspark
    dwccrew;964419 wrote:I guess other countries should have attacked the US then and not allowed the US to establish its empire just like how we did not allow Japan to setup their Pacific empire.
    They could do so if they wished. But they would have had to bare the consequences of our response. Your point does not correlate. We did not attack Japan with our military to thwart them from establishing their Pacific empire. The federal government used its power (via congress) to regulate commerce with foreign nations(Japan) to thwart a growing threat to our western sea shore in the context of providing for our defense and gerneral welfare. The federal commander in chief ordered the concentration of naval forces to the Pacific to guard against increased threats in the Pacific (defensive action). Where did we go wrong here?
  • swoosh
    Your mom knows the answer
  • Footwedge
    Iran with nukes...probably a safer ME. If the US was the only country with nukes, just think how many countries we would have turned into parking lots by now.

    The likes of Cheney, Wolfowicz, Rumsfeld and the entire staff at the Weekly Standard all get good woodies at night envisioning the endless possibilities with such a scenario.
  • majorspark
    Footwedge;964491 wrote:If the US was the only country with nukes, just think how many countries we would have turned into parking lots by now.
    None.
  • dwccrew
    majorspark;964438 wrote:They could do so if they wished. But they would have had to bare the consequences of our response. Your point does not correlate. We did not attack Japan with our military to thwart them from establishing their Pacific empire. The federal government used its power (via congress) to regulate commerce with foreign nations(Japan) to thwart a growing threat to our western sea shore in the context of providing for our defense and gerneral welfare. The federal commander in chief ordered the concentration of naval forces to the Pacific to guard against increased threats in the Pacific (defensive action). Where did we go wrong here?
    We didn't, but perhaps other countries aren't going wrong either, that was my point. Japan attacked us, so we retaliated. We have been meddling in ME affairs for the better part of a half century, should we not have expected that they'd retaliate. Just as you said, they could do so if they wish but have to bare the consequences. Well we are baring the consequences of our ME foreign policy over the last 50 years.

    We can't just tell other countries "Do as we say, not as we do". The US has been a world leader for over a century now, other countries are going to follow the example we have set.

    Hopefully none ever follow the example we set when it comes to using atomic weapons.