Islam is going Nuclear

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Maverick
So Thrawn the sum total of your strategy is to threaten the country with anhilation if they misbehave.

In essance, it's not complete but it would be my jumping off point if Iran demostrated they had the bomb.  In the mean time I would support Iran's move to allow inspectors backing.

It all depends on the time frames involved.  The Bush administration has stated that they believe Iran is just stalling for time.  On the other hand, if one believes that an attack against Iran nuclear science installations will only set Iran back 2-5 years, isn't that also just stalling for time?  

It also depends what one's overall strategy would be.  Mine would consist of two elements: the defense of the US against a primary nuclear attack; and the defense of the US against follow up nuclear attacks.

In order to accomplish the first goal I would concentrate on securing the US borders.  If I had a way-back machine I wouldn't invade Iraq, but instead have gotten congress to allocate funds for tighting the borders up, giving a fraction of the price directly to the border guards, customs etc would have probably made them as close to impregnable as is reasonable.  But as I don't have a way-back machine I would cut federal spending to federal entitlement programs.  And if congress doesn't like, I would veto the hell out of anything that crossed by desk.  (Tightening the borders would also have the side benefit of keeping illegal aliens out.).  I recognise that trade must flow, so although the borders would be more secure, I would increase the number of guards and open up more lanes so to speak.

Iran has wierd demographics, they have a crapload of people in their early twenties.  I believe they can be an agent for liberalism in their country if they exposed to the benefits of western culture (hence my previously stated "Bomb them with Xboxes and Playstation 2s doctrine").  I also believe that they can be radicalised by attacking their country, let alone starting a aggressive nuclear war with them.  I think that if the US attacks Iran it may delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few years but it is all but gauraunteeing a recipical attack in the near future.

There is also a question of legitimacy.  If the US attacks Iran they are offering just cause to be attacked to the Iranians.  If Iran attacks the US first than the US has just cause.  This might not mean alot to the Bush administration, but it should.  Having the support of the international community is a good thing.  Having your allies confidence is a good thing.  They sometimes get intelligence you don't have, they can offer staging areas, logisitcal support, moral support.

Do you really think they will believe it?

 

Given a society that believes they are the right hand of God and it is their duty to either convert or destroy non believers, do you really think you can threaten them?

I don't know if they will believe it.  I know that the Soviets thought it was their undeniable raison d'etre to spread communism and damn the consequences.  Yet they sure believed it.  I could make an arguement that the US and NATO's "tripwire" policy worked in western Europe for decades against those wackjobs.  Perhaps it will work with these wackjobs.  But if not, they would still have to get through my kick-ass border security.

What are you going to do if they don't believe it and detonate a nuke in say Vancouver Island or Manhatten. Are you going to respond with nuking one city? Two or five?

My nuclear response would be disproportional in order to make the message clear that the US isn't going to go around trading nuclear blows for blows.  I would definately EMP the hell out of them, but I would err (if possible) on the side of not effecting their neighbours and not getting the border areas of Iran.  And I would certainly compensate their neighbours if they are effected.

As for physical destruction, I would probably respond with an attack that does about 5X times the damage.   I'm really pulling that number out of my bellybutton though, I might go as high as.  I would want them to lose five times the people, and five times the total economic cost to the US in capital.

What will you do for the reaction of the rest of the arab, or muslim if you will, world from your response?

What would be the response of rest of the muslim world be to an aggressive nuclear attack from the US verses a defensive one?  

Concerning the second part of my stategy, it's possible that whoever won't believe me the first time around, but they sure as **** will after I lob a few nukes in response to a nuclear attack.  And I will have the internation community on my side due to the defensive nature of my attack.

Now assuming that your threat premise is nothing but an attempt to be funny, what is your real idea, or do your really have one? Seriously, I want to know what you think.

I hope I have convinced you that I'm serious.  If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask.

[Maverick]

Thrawn,

Thanks for the replies, I do appreciate it. It's nice to have a discussion rather than the usual foaming at the mouth diatribes and the inevetable FU's tossed back and forth.

For some of what you potulate I can agree with what you are thinking but I have serious doubts that the "allies" we would have would sit still or support a nuclear response, especially an escalated response as you have outlined. I don't have any doubt that many will be cringing at the thought of several nuclear detonations on their side of the globe and would drop any indications of support for it. They would claim nuclear winter, radiation poisoning and fallout spread as their concerns and may well have a valid concern there. EMP's while less harmfull to the populations will scramble the economies of any nation affected by them as communications, computers and other devices will be trashed unless "hardened".

As to the border. I don't think there is a feasable way to really close it off short of a "Berlin wall" type od response complete with guard towers and mine fields as well as anti tunneling actions. There is simply way too much ground to be covered. Yep you can "fortify" the immediate area around towns and cities but experiance has shown that the coyotes and drug "importers" simply move to the outside of the fortification. Since that border is rather large it would be a MASSIVE undertaking and expensive as hell to say the least.

What is the solution? I don't know but I think sanctions are the first step definately. After that, given the "success" of inspections and inspectors being able to work unhindered by the indigent population in iraq, I don't hold much hope out for that. I am really afraid that there will likely be a pre emptive strike on any and all facilities in iran if they do not cave in very soon. I also think that given China's and Russia's investment in the area and already stated reluctance to consider sanctions for iraq that they will not be imposed since there are 2 veto's there in the UN. If they are unwilling to consider mere economic sanctions I doubt they will condone a military response by the UN, not that the UN will act fast enough anyhow.

This is indeed "interesting times" as the chineese curse says. I wonder where the proper route is to solve the problem. Given iran's aggressive rhetoric the stage is getting smaller and the room to move is shrinking the more agressive they get.

[Toad]

In any use of a nuclear weapon against the US you still have the problem of identifying the source.

As has been pointed out the "nuclear fingerprint" file for NK, Pakistani or Iranian uranium does not exist. There's probably a few others that don't exist as well.

So if a weapon goes off in NYC or DC and the source can't be identified.... to whom do you reply in kind?

That question has yet to be answered by anyone here.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Toad



As has been pointed out the "nuclear fingerprint" file for NK, Pakistani or Iranian uranium does not exist. There's probably a few others that don't exist as well.

So if a weapon goes off in NYC or DC and the source can't be identified.... to whom do you reply in kind?

 

/sarcasm
All the above ... just to be safe.

/sarcasm

Bronk

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Maverick
Thrawn,

Thanks for the replies, I do appreciate it. It's nice to have a discussion rather than the usual foaming at the mouth diatribes and the inevetable FU's tossed back and forth.

Thanks, I appreciate it as well and find it constructive.

For some of what you potulate I can agree with what you are thinking but I have serious doubts that the "allies" we would have would sit still or support a nuclear response, especially an escalated response as you have outlined.

I think that probably Harper and England would back the US.  As far as France is concerned, they have policy of nuclear response to nuclear attack.  You get France on side that's practically the rest of battle in NATO right there.  Plus the US would have all those ex-Soviet new NATO members on side.

I don't have any doubt that many will be cringing at the thought of several nuclear detonations on their side of the globe and would drop any indications of support for it.

I wouldn't be asking their permission, I would be informing them what I am going to be doing.  And if they become dicks about I would activate article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.  Hell I would do that anyway to preempt them.

"Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

They would claim nuclear winter, radiation poisoning and fallout spread as their concerns and may well have a valid concern there. EMP's while less harmfull to the populations will scramble the economies of any nation affected by them as communications, computers and other devices will be trashed unless "hardened".

Wind flows east to west, so Europe would probably be fine.  If they are worried about fall I could use neutron bombs.  I doubt nuclear winter could result from the power of the repsonse necessary.  And if so, I would point out that I'm preventing the possible future use of nukes anyway and why the hell should Iran get pass for using them.

As to the border. I don't think there is a feasable way to really close it off short of a "Berlin wall" type od response complete with guard towers and mine fields as well as anti tunneling actions. There is simply way too much ground to be covered. Yep you can "fortify" the immediate area around towns and cities but experiance has shown that the coyotes and drug "importers" simply move to the outside of the fortification. Since that border is rather large it would be a MASSIVE undertaking and expensive as hell to say the least.

I would be a massive undertaking, but no more than fighting an internation war, I think.  First thing I would do would be to harness the citizenry.  Americans want a secure border, look at the Minute Men.  I would tell them to fill thier boots.  Patrol the hell out of it if they want.  I would stick DARPA on it.  I would give them a mandate to discover and develope new and cheaper ways to do it.  I would also call back many of the US soldiers doing service in other countries.  

What is the solution? I don't know but I think sanctions are the first step definately. After that, given the "success" of inspections and inspectors being able to work unhindered by the indigent population in iraq, I don't hold much hope out for that.

I'm typically a big fan of sanction, in international politics I believe it is the most moral form of influence, besides rational discourse.  Regarding Iran, it might work.  But I'm pretty sure that the Russians and Chinese won't allow it to either happen, or be effective.

I am really afraid that there will likely be a pre emptive strike on any and all facilities in iran if they do not cave in very soon.

They caved, they have offered to let inspectors back in.  My concern is that Rice said that it wasn't good enough.  She said she wanted a resolution passed under Chapter 7 of the UN charter (allowing the resolution to be enforced militarily).  I get the feeling that what you and I want (a peaceful resolution of the issue) isn't what the Bush administration wants.

I also think that given China's and Russia's investment in the area and already stated reluctance to consider sanctions for iraq that they will not be imposed since there are 2 veto's there in the UN. If they are unwilling to consider mere economic sanctions I doubt they will condone a military response by the UN, not that the UN will act fast enough anyhow.

Exactly.

This is indeed "interesting times" as the chineese curse says. I wonder where the proper route is to solve the problem. Given iran's aggressive rhetoric the stage is getting smaller and the room to move is shrinking the more agressive they get.

A couple of months ago I believed that there was no way that the US was going to attack Iran, now I feel that it's inevitable.

[Yeager]

So if a weapon goes off in NYC or DC and the source can't be identified.... to whom do you reply in kind?
====
Mecca then Medina then all the major cities of Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea then all the minor cities.  Take a breath and go clean back thru for round two.

[Toad]

Step away from it and look at that in a non-US view.

What would that make the US?

The worst scourge of the planet in all recorded history.

Sounds cute but it would be the end of us as we'd have totally lost our soul.

[Maverick]

That and likely have received a response from every nuclear power on the earth as well. Too many nukes too close to nervous folks who have them too.

[Toad]

Mav,

Check your phone messages.

[Yeager]

blast them all to hell, lets get it over with

[Toad]

Let's see.... your plan is to nuke a dozen or so cities and then go back and hit them again to make sure.

Two dozen large nukes going off has got to be good for the planet's environment. No one can dispute that.

Then there's that little "responsibility" factor; so far no one has explained to me how we're going KNOW for certain that any one or all of those countries they're going to nuke had anything at all to do with hitting a US target.

[Yeager]

I dont know what will happen, but it had damned well better be so overwhelming and so catostrophic that an entire religious belief system reorganizes itself into an all peacefull and loving faith.

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by Yeager
blast them all to hell, lets get it over with

you sound like yer bud Nuke.

[Toad]

Ah, ok... got it Yeag.

Your plan is to kill them indescriminately until you make them "peaceful".

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Toad
Then there's that little "responsibility" factor; so far no one has explained to me how we're going KNOW for certain that any one or all of those countries they're going to nuke had anything at all to do with hitting a US target.

Maybe you won't.  But probably you will.  

"In the relatively new field of "nuclear forensics" — which focuses on analyzing the nature, use and origin of nuclear materials -- similar methods are now being applied to determine material characteristics with high degrees of accuracy."

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2002/10-17-722025.shtml

Besides, the US has at least a couple of years to further develop it.  Throw another billion at DARPA.



If Iran enriches enough uranium to make a nuke while being inspected by the IAEA.
If Iran makes a nuke while being inspected by the IAEA.
If Iran decides to waste their nuke trump.
If Iran decides to risk a nuclear **** strom and use it on the US.
If the US and it's allies intelligence services don't get wind of it.
If it gets past US border security.
If no one can figure out where it came from.  (we are dealing with a pretty short list here)

Then the US might be **** out of luck.


Then again, if the US attacks Iran and doesn't change other policies it will be in the same situation in a few years from now.  But they will have further radicalised muslims and have lost just cause.