ptown_trojans_1 wrote: If the U.S. was attacked by a nuclear weapon, given our overwhelming conventional forces, why wouldn't we just stick to conventional forces to eliminate Iran?

The only reason why our war plans included nukes in the Cold War was the U.S. did not have enough conventional forces to defend against the Soviets and in order to potentially stop a first strike (Silo busters). Neither of those situations apply to Iran, so why should nuclear weapons be used in an attack?

Why not a 100 or so B-2s or B-52s with JDAMs and Cruise missiles to topple the Iranian leadership?

Because what has kept nuclear weapons from being used against us is the assured instant destruction of the nation offensively using them.

majorspark wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: If the U.S. was attacked by a nuclear weapon, given our overwhelming conventional forces, why wouldn't we just stick to conventional forces to eliminate Iran?

The only reason why our war plans included nukes in the Cold War was the U.S. did not have enough conventional forces to defend against the Soviets and in order to potentially stop a first strike (Silo busters). Neither of those situations apply to Iran, so why should nuclear weapons be used in an attack?

Why not a 100 or so B-2s or B-52s with JDAMs and Cruise missiles to topple the Iranian leadership?

Because what has kept nuclear weapons from being used against us is the assured instant destruction of the nation offensively using them.

Well, maybe it was the elimination of the regime, which is now possible through conventional weapons.

I'll admit, I'm torn on the issue. I do see the merits of retaliating with nuclear weapons to get even, but I also see the argument in which we have enough conventional arms and technology to do pretty much the same thing as nuclear weapons can do minus all the collateral damage.

But, I'll add this twist, we could use tactical nuclear weapons, at a low yield to eliminate the regime. These could include nuclear armed Tomahawks or B61 bombs dropped from B-2s and B52s. The low yield could do major damage and "limit" civilian causalities.

I see both sides and would argue that our war plans should include both options depending on the situation.

queencitybuckeye wrote: Which is why there's a point where Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program should be considered an act of war against the United States of America.

An "act of war against the United States"? For doing what? Jesus God Almighty...I can't believe there are still these "I love war" radicals loose in my country.

Footwedge wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: Which is why there's a point where Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program should be considered an act of war against the United States of America.

An "act of war against the United States"? For doing what? Jesus God Almighty...I can't believe there are still these "I love war" radicals loose in my country.

I don't love war, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that 1) the end game of their program is anything other than developing a nuclear weapon and 2) that their intent for building such a weapon is defensive in nature. Assuming those are accurate (and they are), I feel no obligation to wait for them to use such a weapon before we have a right to act. Fighting when we should not is a bad thing which you correctly point out. Not fighting when we should is an act of cowardice and every bit as damaging to the country.

And please spare us the "my country" shit. It's childish.

Writerbuckeye wrote:
If they attack us and murder millions of people -- they are NOT innocent.

Period.

The people or the government attacked and murdered millions of people.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
I believe eers (correct me if I am wrong) was referring to the millions of Iranian population that would die as action for their government. There is a serious view that it is deeply immoral to attack a city with a nuclear weapon, as the civilians should not directly be held responsible for the governments actions, as in just in war. In conventional war, civilians are spared, considered innocent. In nuclear war, they are considered pawns, hostages some say. Why should there be a difference?

Some would argue that instead, that a nuclear response should refrain from attacking cities where millions would die and instead attack pure military targets.

It is a discussion that have been going on in nuclear deterrence theory since the doctrine of massive retaliation in the 1950s. So, it is no period.

You are correct.

Not to mention simply killing millions of innocent civilians would do nothing to stop the government.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Sometimes innocents have to die if you are to stop further bloodshed -- and I don't care if the entire country has to be burned up if it means no more attacks on the US or other countries.

Al-Qaeda supports your tactics.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: Which is why there's a point where Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program should be considered an act of war against the United States of America.

An "act of war against the United States"? For doing what? Jesus God Almighty...I can't believe there are still these "I love war" radicals loose in my country.

I don't love war, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that 1) the end game of their program is anything other than developing a nuclear weapon and 2) that their intent for building such a weapon is defensive in nature. Assuming those are accurate (and they are), I feel no obligation to wait for them to use such a weapon before we have a right to act. Fighting when we should not is a bad thing which you correctly point out. Not fighting when we should is an act of cowardice and every bit as damaging to the country.

And please spare us the "my country" shit. It's childish.

You explain to me how the US can declare war on Iran. What exactly have they done? I got all week.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: Which is why there's a point where Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program should be considered an act of war against the United States of America.

An "act of war against the United States"? For doing what? Jesus God Almighty...I can't believe there are still these "I love war" radicals loose in my country.

I don't love war, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that 1) the end game of their program is anything other than developing a nuclear weapon and 2) that their intent for building such a weapon is defensive in nature. Assuming those are accurate (and they are), I feel no obligation to wait for them to use such a weapon before we have a right to act. Fighting when we should not is a bad thing which you correctly point out. Not fighting when we should is an act of cowardice and every bit as damaging to the country.

And please spare us the "my country" shit. It's childish.

That is horrifying.

I Wear Pants wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: Which is why there's a point where Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program should be considered an act of war against the United States of America.

An "act of war against the United States"? For doing what? Jesus God Almighty...I can't believe there are still these "I love war" radicals loose in my country.

I don't love war, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that 1) the end game of their program is anything other than developing a nuclear weapon and 2) that their intent for building such a weapon is defensive in nature. Assuming those are accurate (and they are), I feel no obligation to wait for them to use such a weapon before we have a right to act. Fighting when we should not is a bad thing which you correctly point out. Not fighting when we should is an act of cowardice and every bit as damaging to the country.

And please spare us the "my country" shit. It's childish.

That is horrifying.

That is horrifying that there are actually people who condone murder and think nothing of it like they are out shopping for the day.

Oh by the way I have a neighbor who happens to be Muslim and I heard he hates the freedoms I give my children and he has weapons in his house. I should certainly take care of that bastard before he gets me it is only a matter of time before he snaps and starts wasting the whole neighborhood. :rolleyes:

Footwedge wrote:

You explain to me how the US can declare war on Iran. What exactly have they done? I got all week.

I'll go slowly, as anyone who says "I got" needs a little extra time.

1. I did not call for the U.S. to declare war on Iran now, or in the near future. Therefore, your not at all subtle implication that I'm some sort of knuckle-dragging war monger is a strawman. Building strawmen is dishonest. Stop doing it.

2. While the debates here over what various reports mean are somewhat interesting time-killers, that speaks to where Iran's nuclear program is now, not to where it is headed. Where it is headed is almost without doubt to the development of nuclear weapons. If there is another scenario that makes real-world sense in terms of their intent, please explain to me what it is. Show your work.

3. Assuming #2 is correct (and it is), it is fairly obvious to me that Iran being a member of the nuclear weapons club is not in the interest of the United States. I would be extremely surprised if someone would disagree with this statement.

4. At some point, Iran will develop this program, approaching a line where it is obvious to everyone what they are doing, and that they have the capability of accomplishing it. At that point, I suppose some may argue that we have no right to prevent another nation from doing this. We have every right. If I go outside and my neighbor points a gun at me, I have every right to cancel his fucking ticket then and there. Others, it appears, would argue that I have no right to act until he actually shoots me. This, be it 5, 10, 20 years from now, would be when we would need to act.

I'm all for preventing war. We should continue to monitor what they're doing, at the same time continuing to keep the same message, which is that there is a line that they may not and will not cross.

I Wear Pants wrote: That is horrifying.

Are you saying that our options should be limited to allowing them to build a nuclear weapon and hoping they decide not to use it? Thousands of vaporized human beings and thousands more dying of radiation poisoning is somewhat horrifying, don't you think?

eersandbeers wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:
If they attack us and murder millions of people -- they are NOT innocent.

Period.

The people or the government attacked and murdered millions of people.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
I believe eers (correct me if I am wrong) was referring to the millions of Iranian population that would die as action for their government. There is a serious view that it is deeply immoral to attack a city with a nuclear weapon, as the civilians should not directly be held responsible for the governments actions, as in just in war. In conventional war, civilians are spared, considered innocent. In nuclear war, they are considered pawns, hostages some say. Why should there be a difference?

Some would argue that instead, that a nuclear response should refrain from attacking cities where millions would die and instead attack pure military targets.

It is a discussion that have been going on in nuclear deterrence theory since the doctrine of massive retaliation in the 1950s. So, it is no period.

You are correct.

Not to mention simply killing millions of innocent civilians would do nothing to stop the government.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Sometimes innocents have to die if you are to stop further bloodshed -- and I don't care if the entire country has to be burned up if it means no more attacks on the US or other countries.

Al-Qaeda supports your tactics.

Ahhhh false equivalence -- the last refuge of folks who can't debate honestly.

I do believe Al Queda specifically makes it a policy to target innocents as a part of its strategy.

The US does not.

I was responding ONLY to a hypothetical situation where the US is attacked by an unprovoked enemy and causes millions of deaths, and stated that I feel a response of equal or greater force was necessary to make sure it NEVER happens again.

Not even close to the same thing as al Queda and you damn well know it.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

You explain to me how the US can declare war on Iran. What exactly have they done? I got all week.

I'll go slowly, as anyone who says "I got" needs a little extra time.

1. I did not call for the U.S. to declare war on Iran now, or in the near future. Therefore, your not at all subtle implication that I'm some sort of knuckle-dragging war monger is a strawman. Building strawmen is dishonest. Stop doing it.

2. While the debates here over what various reports mean are somewhat interesting time-killers, that speaks to where Iran's nuclear program is now, not to where it is headed. Where it is headed is almost without doubt to the development of nuclear weapons. If there is another scenario that makes real-world sense in terms of their intent, please explain to me what it is. Show your work.

3. Assuming #2 is correct (and it is), it is fairly obvious to me that Iran being a member of the nuclear weapons club is not in the interest of the United States. I would be extremely surprised if someone would disagree with this statement.

4. At some point, Iran will develop this program, approaching a line where it is obvious to everyone what they are doing, and that they have the capability of accomplishing it. At that point, I suppose some may argue that we have no right to prevent another nation from doing this. We have every right. If I go outside and my neighbor points a gun at me, I have every right to cancel his fucking ticket then and there. Others, it appears, would argue that I have no right to act until he actually shoots me. This, be it 5, 10, 20 years from now, would be when we would need to act.

I'm all for preventing war. We should continue to monitor what they're doing, at the same time continuing to keep the same message, which is that there is a line that they may not and will not cross.

I actually agree that Iran's program is probably, not 100% sure, but probably for military purposes.

I disagree that this poses a direct threat to the U.S. Yes, it should not happen, but if Iran does obtain weapons and the capability to use them, I think an argument of deterrence and containment could work. We are still years away from the discussion, but we need to start the talk of a strategy.

I'd be interested to know where exactly you think the line is for military strikes? Is it now? Is it when Iran announces it has a bomb? Is it when Iran would test a device (They would almost certainly have to) Or would it be only when they are making aggressive actions such as fueling a missile or making harsh rhetorical statements?

I ask because I think military strikes should be on the table, but only in the sense when Iran is making hostile actions or is fueling a missile.