Good question, and honestly, I don't know. I think there was certainly justification for war in those cases, but since those countries are nuclear powers, escalating wars against them could have resulted in nuclear armageddon. That may simply have been too high a price, even if it was the right thing to do. This is why it is imperative that we keep Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal, because it adds a very negative variable into the calculus of going to war, even moreso than because of the threat of nuclear armed terrorists (though that would also be a strong motivating factor). I'm glad I wasn't the one facing those decisions.
Thank you for your honest answers and I think you can understand then why many like myself are very leery of the idea of going to war with Iran. Iran isn't as powerful as the PRC or the USSR but at the same time there is potentially a large cost associated with all out war and if our experience with Iraq has taught us anything we shouldn't consider it a cake walk since it won't be just defeating the Iranian military but also stabilizing the country. I agree with you that it wouldn't be a good thing for Iran to get nukes but at the sametime I'm still leery about going to war to stop them. From what I've heard it will be difficult if not impossible to take out their nuclear infrastructure relying on air strikes. IMO air strikes on their facilities would also lead to much further escalation on Iran's part in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and other places. I don't believe dimplomacy has yet run its course and there still may be a way to defuse this situation diplomatically. If we jump the gun and launch airstrikes any such possibility will go out the window.
I don't see any problem with Iran going nuclear as long as everybody knows that they will be regarded on a MAD basis. In other words, if the U.S. or Israel detects a rocket launch with a trajectory that tracks toward either country, an immediate massive counterstrike is initiated (use 'em or lose 'em). If we discover it's a "false positive," we probably can stop ours one way or another. I'm not so sure Israel can ... or would. It's a Russian roulette pistol with which Iran wants to play. However, the U.S. and then U.S.S.R. maintained the peace in this way for close to 50 years.
This was not as much of a sure thing as your statement makes it sound. Beyond the fact that there were near continuous simmering proxy wars for all 50 years, it is my understandings that there was several times that both sides were exceptionally close to 'pushing the button' or unknowingly doing something that would automatically trigger the button for the other side. I think it has been fairly reasonably documented that the doctrine of the Soviet Union included the insane idea that it was possible to win a nuclear war. In general I agree you deter frequency of wars with MAD, but as opposed to traditional war, it only takes one transgression to really **** things up. You may make up for or even surpass reduced frequency of war with increased amplitude of carnage. As you increase the number of people who have access to a nuke, you increase the likelihood of giving the power to someone who will miscalculate and think they can use nukes and win. Another thing that sticks in my mind the way the mullahs threw away lives in massed human wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq War. That is not something that I think most people would be willing to accept. If they were so prolific in throwing their own countrymen’s lives away, I’m not sure that bodes well for their properly understanding and accepting the horror of nuclear weapons.
Kudos on a clear assessment of the deficiences of MAD. Now, without some form of pulling their teeth before they can bite, please suggest another path.
It really depends on your definition of terrorist, doesn't it? What IS your definition of terrorist? This whole thread, IMO, is a moot point because currently, the U.S. cannot invade Iran without self-destructing. Just a few things to consider... 1) Iran is surrounded by Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two countries are not secure yet. 2) Every country in the world is looking to kick the U.S. government while its down. A confrontation with Iran would put it low enough for others to make their move. 3) Best case scenario, Iran is invaded, the world is pissed, and the US lose every other war/battle that follows. Iran is not Iraq and its not Al Qaeda. Just a quick glance at how the US suffered from its failed quests in Afghanistan, while taking into consideration how many time more diffuclt Iran will be, will quickly show that a war right now is unfeasible. Nevermind unprecedented. Iranians will fight for freedom, but they will not fight for America. America has shattered its credibility wrt the ability to bring peace and prosperity to a country.
Unless you can suggest a workable solution for the Iranian conundrum, you can't fault StupidMoniker for his observations.
Intentionally target civilians would be a good starting point. A lot of people would also say they are not a member of a standing national military. Either standard rules out your average IDF grunt. I think you radically overestimate the military power of Iran and radically underestimate the military power of the US. We could invade Iran, Syria and Venezuela and I still wouldn't bet on any other nation successfully waging a war against the US. Never had trouble understanding it, just don't agree with it. It may be that the only way to stop Iran from getting nukes is to use force. If it came to that, which way would you go?
Obviously I can't. But I don't think we should consider a MAD situation with Iran to be anything but a failure. It is perhaps an inevitable failure or the least bad failure among many bad ways to fail but a failure nonetheless.
I've mistakenly characterized you as a radical sympathist in the past mainly due to a few posts in the Muhammad cartoon thread. I apologize, you're obvioulsy more levelheaded than I gave you credit for.
Agree with most of your analysis regarding the MAD but I think there are a few things to consider regarding the Iran - Iraq war. First off Iran didn't start that war and while numerically superior were facing a better armed foe who was getting outside aid. That the mullahs and there commanders sacrificed huge amounts of soldiers in a war they considered to be vital to their own survival is cold blooded but not an indicator that they would be willing to engage in a move that is bound to be suicidal like using nuclear weapons. The Soviets in WWII sent waves of men against the superiorly armed German forces and so did the Chinese in Korea. Yet neither of these countries with leaders likely more unstable than the Mullahs launched nuclear attacks when they got nukes. For that matter the US Civil War was largely won by Grant's policy of overwhelming the Confederates with large amounts of his own men yet while Grant proved a terrible President he didn't willfully take the country down a destructive path.
That's a tough question and would have to look at what happened or didn't happen along the diplomatic path to get there. I would still be leery of war and woudl consider accepting a MAD standoff with Iran. Although I agree with Ottomaton that that wouldn't be a good thing but I would consider it since the alternative of war and occupation of Iran is something that I believe will be very costly for us.
One other problem with MAD that never seems to get discussed is accidents. Most if not all new nuclear weapons states tend to have horrendous security systems to prevent accidental launches and glitches that could set off retaliation from a number of nations. Case in point, Russia was seconds away from launching a nuke in the 90s when they mistakenly thought a Norwegian rocket was a nuclear weapon. Thankfully, Russia and the US had developed a co-operative early warning satellite system to give both countries advanced warning on potential nuclear launches and give each country more time to make a decision. New states like Iran that are isolated from major powers are denied technology to make their weapons systems safer that other countries have like PAL links, access to international hotline links that allow for instant communication and access to Early Warning satellites.
Well, first of all, it won't be a pure MAD situation between Iran and US because Iran can only hit our soldiers in Iraq. That's why US can threaten Pakistan to bomb it back to the Stone Age even though Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
You are completely ignoring Israel's nuclear strike force. They will have no time to sort out whether Iran is launching. Remember, they are the killer bee nest of the Middle East. IMO if Iran so much as twitches their nuclear trigger finger, Israel immediately will launch a sizable retaliation force that cannot be "recalled." Gallagher once said, with a lot of truth, that the scariest name for a rocket bearing nuclear weapons is "Oops."
Well, I suppose this thread is about US and Iran, no? Anyway, obviously there is an MAD situation between Iran and Israel should Iran acquire nuclear weapons. But then this is the problem between Iran and Israel. They can duke it out all they want. I will put my $$$ on Israel for this one.
Have you ever been to the area? One nuke hitting Tel Aviv and Israel loses, even if Iran is turned into a parking lot. D&D. Glowing in the Dark.
As I said, this is a business between Iran and Israel. I don't understand why we should worry about it. If Israel wants to avoid the situation you mentioned, I would recommend them to do more diplomacy and trade with Iran instead of practicing flying missions to bomb Natanz. Last time I heard, Iranians also like our green backs just like the rest of the world.
You seriously believe Israel can have talks with Iran, as well as trade, with what's his name as President? Give me a break. We have vital national interests all over the region, not just with Israel. Iran with nukes is a potential nightmare on numerous levels. Having said that, I want George W. Bush to have no part of a military confrontation with Iran. The man has proven his incompetence. Let the next President deal with it, whoever he/she is. D&D. Glow in the Dark.
