Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Third Presidential Debate

 
Bombing Iran would be the single stupidest thing that Israel and the US have done in the region. It would entrench the regime, trigger a missile blitz on Israel that the nation had never seen before in it's history, plunge an already unstable region into war, and burn away all the limited progress Obama's made to building good will with the Middle East, and worst of all not really do anything to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Obama isn't stupid enough do something like that right before an election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
@Atlictoatl: It's a shame, because it's what's needed. You can't just bludgeon the world into submission. China is rising, Russia is rising from the ashes. Neither are nations that can be dissuaded by landing a few thousand Marines. And even as we're seeing in the Middle East, landing a few thousand Marines isn't always beneficial to America's interests in the region.
I'm not understanding why you addressed this to me. I'm well aware of the need for nuance, I was just telling you that most Americans don't care for it very much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
Of course the real question is this:
The President announced at the debate that in the next week the US and Israel will undertake the largest joint military operation ever undertaken by the two countries together.
When romney was criticisng the president on Iran and their centrifuges, Obama's grin got really big.
Israel has, historically, bombed other middle eastern countries nuclear programs if they felt they were getting too close to having the bomb.
Ready for the October suprise?
It's a joint military missile defence exercise, largely involving computers called Austere Challenge 12 - it was announced a while ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
Bombing Iran would be the single stupidest thing that Israel and the US have done in the region. It would entrench the regime, trigger a missile blitz on Israel that the nation had never seen before in it's history, plunge an already unstable region into war, and burn away all the limited progress Obama's made to building good will with the Middle East, and worst of all not really do anything to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Obama isn't stupid enough do something like that right before an election.
True, but faced with the choice between an Iranian bomb with Tehran's military capability mostly intact and one with it mostly destroyed (because any war is going to see the bulk of Iran's power projection assets either fired or destroyed), Israel might well choose to attack.

They might well. It would be a stupid idea. The only way to stop an industrial nation that's determined to get the bomb is to take them back to the stone age. If you know the math, a nuke is pretty easy to make. To take away that capability entirely requires either a) changing the circumstances that make Iran feel that having the bomb is unnecessary for their security or b) use Israel's own bombs to turn large chunks of the nation to glass. There isn't really much middle ground, and I'd like to think that we all can tell which of those two is the better option.

To be fair to Israel here, their Osiraq attack delayed Iraq's nuke development to the point that the Gulf War ended it permanently and Syria's not started again since 2007.

Also there are logistical issues with developing a nuke, not just academic ones. Sure a college student built one once as a project, which illustrated how easy it was and the need to keep the resources to build them restricted, which is done much more effectively now. Of course if you take out that many centrifuges, or even teh fissionable material, depending on where what is stored... Iran's regime might not be so entrenched and their ability to strike back could be severely limited...

There's also the world of difference between developing a nuclear device and having the capability to deliver it effectively i.e. getting it small enough to put on a missile or a plane, along with getting said vehicle to the target.

Also, Iran has no capability to defend against any counter-attack, Israeli or American.

Except an attack by a foreign power is the best way to shore up support for an incumbent regime, especially if it's from a nation that's widely regarded as oppressive, hypocritical warmongers. Even Israeli strategists have come on record as saying that a full strike by Israel right now would only set the Iranian program back by two years at best. It's a bad idea expressed by a politician who listens to his own propaganda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK View Post
There's also the world of difference between developing a nuclear device and having the capability to deliver it effectively i.e. getting it small enough to put on a missile or a plane, along with getting said vehicle to the target.

Also, Iran has no capability to defend against any counter-attack, Israeli or American.
That's only really a concern if you buy into the idea that the Iranian government is suicidal. They want the bomb to counter the Israeli nukes so that they can be a more proactive force in the region. They don't necessarily want to nuke Israel, despite Ahmadinejad's rhetoric. All that would do is get a whole lot of Iranians killed. And to be honest, you could mount a Fat Man type bomb in a SCUD if you wanted to. More than enough range to hit Israel. The point is deterrence, not proactive threat projection.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status