The Utility of Force

[[R-DEV]Dunehunter]

Probably because most of the different shades of grey are trying to kill eachother.

[[R-MOD]Saobh]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]dunehunter

Probably because most of the different shades of grey are trying to kill eachother.

You mean Martians ?

OMG We're being invaded by Martians !!!!!! Hide your wives !!!

[AnRK]

Sorry to simplify the discussion to an extent, but could it not be easily conceived that Iran's theoretical nuclear armament is for defensive measures. My international relations lecturer (Professor Paul Rodgers if any of you guys have heard of him, been on newsnight and BBC news a fair few times including relating to this issue) seems to think that the general consensus amongst Iranian citizens is that they feel very threatened, and don't see why countries with plans to upkeep their nuclear stockpiles for t least another 50 years should tell them they cannot have their own.

Obviously that's not bearing the greater international situation into account, but according to him that's how the greater Iranian population feel. But with regards to the political powers of the country, they are obviously pretty angry and obviously have alot of issues with Israel, which will probably be the only target they'll have the range to target by the sounds of it, but is any countries political leaders worldwide stupid enough to begin nuclear war? Obviously when targeting countries with no nuclear weapons, with no allegiance to any that do either, there will be no repercussions. But I don't see why, for example in the Cold war situation, either the USA or USSR would be stupid enough, cos neither of them would get away without a scratch or two.

I'll have to check out that book though, sounds very interesting. I'd imagine the continued overuse of armour and infantry is mainly for economical reasons, as it's obviously a very VERY large part of many countries economies and removing the industries involved would be a large shock to the global economy and have a very adverse effect on arms producing countries obviously.

[WNxKenwayy]

Having the argument be "our government isn't stupid enough to actually use nuclear weapons" is as dumb as that argument. All it would have taken at a few points in history is a errant bullet somewhere and there would have been all out nuclear war. Take a good look at the Iranian president and tell me you'd trust him not to try attacking Israel with one. And I don't mean just launching one in there. I mean building one, giving it to some suicidal terrorist, and saying "hey, we didn't attack them, it was terrorist see".

[[R-MOD]Saobh]

Originally Posted by WNxKenwayy

Having the argument be "our government isn't stupid enough to actually use nuclear weapons" is as dumb as that argument. All it would have taken at a few points in history is a errant bullet somewhere and there would have been all out nuclear war. Take a good look at the Iranian president and tell me you'd trust him not to try attacking Israel with one. And I don't mean just launching one in there. I mean building one, giving it to some suicidal terrorist, and saying "hey, we didn't attack them, it was terrorist see".

Tho it still hasn't happened even tho North Korea and Pakistan have had the bomb for some time now. And both countries are not really examples of stable societies.
The use of the nuclear solution is not in the hands of a single person however mighty he may be (and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is far from it even in his own country) And as you need the resources of a whole country to create it I doubt it'll be used any day soon in a reckless way, all the more when it carries much more weight as a bargaining chip rather then its actual use (and considering what befalls afterwards).

Its preferable that Iran does not get the nuclear weapon, but seriously the US has put itself in a position where it can't diplomatically nor militarily do anything about it.
Way to go for short term geostrategy thinking.

[WNxKenwayy]

Originally Posted by Saobh

Tho it still hasn't happened even tho North Korea and Pakistan have had the bomb for some time now. And both countries are not really examples of stable societies.
The use of the nuclear solution is not in the hands of a single person however mighty he may be (and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is far from it even in his own country) And as you need the resources of a whole country to create it I doubt it'll be used any day soon in a reckless way, all the more when it carries much more weight as a bargaining chip rather then its actual use (and considering what befalls afterwards).

Its preferable that Iran does not get the nuclear weapon, but seriously the US has put itself in a position where it can't diplomatically nor militarily do anything about it.
Way to go for short term geostrategy thinking.

Yes, there is something we can do about. It wont be nice and political correct and will shock a lot of people, but if we have to there is nothing stopping us from blowing the shit out of their facilities ala Israel v Iraq some time ago. If Iran then attacks us in Iraq, well, we deal with that too.

Honestly, I really hope we take a diplomatic solution. Buck up, eat some crow, say we were wrong even if we weren't, and find a way to get inspectors in that doesn't just further increase their nuclear capability (giving money freely etc). Most importantly, get the **** off the foreign oil nipple so these 3rd world backward ass societies don't matter any more as their money dries up. Support those governments who support us and care less about the ones who don't. Those that aren't willing to embrace democracy and capitalism will fail miserably (they have nothing else to offer for income besides oil).

[SiN|ScarFace]

Giving a nuke to terrorists would be as suicidal as doing it yourself. Israel would nuke Iran on principal.

[AnRK]

You make a good point about giving a bomb to terrorists to bomb Israel or blaming terrorists for such an attack. But it the cold war scenario, if either the U.S. or the Russians launched a nuke, they would get nuked, so you might as well be launching the things at yourself to an extent. I don't get why any state would launch nukes if they knew they would be nuked in return, doesn't make any sense to me.

Obviously it's not quite that simple most of the time, with research into nuclear defences and such, and like you said there has always been the risk of none-state entities getting their hands on nukes to some extent. But slightly simpler situations (well not really that simple but at least you know who's attacking you), like Russia and USA during the cold war, I really don't see why either party would do something with such destructive consequences form themselves.

Even with the possible ways the situation could pan out in Iran, if Israel gets nuked anytime soon they'll get the shit bombed out of them. So likewise it would be a really bad idea for Iran to attack Israel in any way or form, and I personally don't think they'll just do it on principle if such harsh repercussions would be involved.

I concur with you though Kenway, I fuckin hope there's a diplomatic way out of this.