It's just about time to start hammering Iran

[Mefistofeles]

The die as cast and the banner of Aries awaits to be
Unfurled in all its terrible glory.
Like the barbarian war drums of old
The sound of the beast is unmistakable
Its growl course its teeth sharp the beast's
Eyes burning with unspeakable hunger.


Its been quite some time since I've written a poem    This subject of America and war is certainly be a great source of inspiration for now if not for generations to come.   I saw an old man once with an American flag pin; I felt like telling him you wear the sign of Aries.  
The arrogance, hubris and folly of the great and mighty never cease to amaze me. Onward sons of Aries to our destiny: hell.

[YoungBuck]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arrow

Quote
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey
Between this and Iran's burgeoning nuclear program, which they've already admitted to, it's time to consider Iran the next target.

Well, if they want to be a nuclear power, perhaps we should treat them as one.

A fully loaded Ohio class SSBN should get the point across.

I hear water splash there are you in your bathtub playing with your  plastic "armada"  again?  Dont forget to wash your hair with tearless shampoo kiddo or you'll cry again.

[Mefistofeles]

Quote
hear water splash there are you in your bathtub playing with your plastic "armada" again? Dont forget to wash your hair with tearless shampoo kiddo or you'll cry again.

I agree that Scut is wrong however personal attacks are uncalled for.   If you want to tear his arguments to pieces that's fine by me but attacking someone personally is bad form.

[YoungBuck]

  You are clueless  again, what is wrong with you, friend?  It has nothing to do with ScutMonkey.  My response is to the childish post by Arrow, not Scut.   It would really help  if before  responding  you would read and understand whaever it is you are responding to. There is nothing  personal in my response, the sooner you understand it   the better  it will be for ya. Good day.  

[Arrow]

Quote
Originally posted by: YoungBuck It would really help  if before  responding  you would read and understand whaever it is you responding to.

You really should follow your advice, because if you haven't noticed, I illustrated my point in follow up posts.

Its great to watch people make ASSumptions.
 

[YoungBuck]

Buddy,   my response is to your  specific  POST  and  not  to the   "illustrations to your point in follow up posts", whatever that is.


YOU: "Well, if they want to be a nuclear power, perhaps we should treat them as one.  A fully loaded Ohio class SSBN should get the point across.

ME: " I hear water splash there are you in your bathtub playing with your plastic "armada" again? Dont forget to wash your hair with tearless shampoo kiddo or           you'll cry again. "



 I hope this  "illustration" will help ya see better.            

[VorLonUK]

Quote
ME: " I hear water splash there are you in your bathtub playing with your plastic "armada" again? Dont forget to wash your hair with tearless shampoo kiddo or you'll cry again. "

lol, too true..

[Arrow]

Ah, the trolls are out tonight!

[SoloMalee]

Some of the opinions in this thread are scary...

virtually every day, there are civilians and coalition soldiers dying in Iraq and there are still people who think there's capacity and sense in extending a conflict that isn't even now contained, controlled or anywhere near over.

Also, Iran and Islamist culture will be difficult to overcome in such a scenario when you consider their strong beliefs that within their religion it is an honour to die for God (or something like that anyway...sorry if I have that off kilter)...Definitely a very dangerous situation to enter into and one that I hope Bush isn't even dumb enough to follow.

[Overkill]

Quote
Sorry, but it was the MAD policy that kept the hotspots in world events from turning into full blown world wars. The Berlin Airlift, the various wars in the Middle East, the Cubian missile crisis, Korea, Vietnam... When you know military victory is impossible, you use diplomacy and find other options.

Nonsense. If the MAD theory held any water at all they wouldn't have become hotspots in the first place. These conflict happened because of the nuclear detterent. The two sides needed to left off steam, and did so by proxy, in all of those areas you named. Since WW2, and despite the MAD theory theres been war somewhere in the World every single year, and usually with one side or the other (or both) backing the nations or "sides" involved. So much for diplomacy......................  

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Overkill
Nonsense. If the MAD theory held any water at all they wouldn't have become hotspots in the first place.  These conflict happened because of the nuclear detterent. The two sides needed to left off steam, and did so by proxy, in all of those areas you named.

Your implication is that instead of engaging in a full scale war on each other the US and USSR used proxy countries to let off steam.  Now the logical followup is this:

Do you prefer full scale war or proxy wars?  

Quote
Since WW2, and despite the MAD theory theres been war somewhere in the World every single year, and usually with one side or the other (or both) backing the nations or "sides" involved. So much for diplomacy......................

And before WW2 the same fact was a reality.  Maybe some of us should admit that war is a part of human nature and that it can't always be avoided.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: YoungBuck
Buddy,   my response is to your  specific  POST  and  not  to the   "illustrations to your point in follow up posts", whatever that is.


YOU: "Well, if they want to be a nuclear power, perhaps we should treat them as one.  A fully loaded Ohio class SSBN should get the point across.

ME: " I hear water splash there are you in your bathtub playing with your plastic "armada" again? Dont forget to wash your hair with tearless shampoo kiddo or           you'll cry again. "

I hope this  "illustration" will help ya see better.

Why don't you actually try debating for a change Young Buck.  You implied Arrow is acting like a child.  That's not debating, that's insulting someone and you've been warned against that time and time and time and time again.  It's old and tired.  Keep it up and I'll ban you again and make it permanent.  I've got plenty of email complaints about you saved on my HD to forward on to Jasper and Rocky to back it up.

[Arrow]

Quote
Nonsense. If the MAD theory held any water at all they wouldn't have become hotspots in the first place. These conflict happened because of the nuclear detterent. The two sides needed to left off steam, and did so by proxy, in all of those areas you named. Since WW2, and despite the MAD theory theres been war somewhere in the World every single year, and usually with one side or the other (or both) backing the nations or "sides" involved. So much for diplomacy......................

Without the nuclear deterent, these proxy fights wouldn't have happened. Instead, US and USSR forces would had duked it out directly in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. The scale of death and destruction would have been much, much larger. The Berlin Blockaide or the Korean War would have served as a the trigger for a third world war.

[Mefistofeles]

Quote
Without the nuclear deterent, these proxy fights wouldn't have happened. Instead, US and USSR forces would had duked it out directly in Europe

This line of reasoning would imply that a successful Iranian nuclear will probably prevent direct conflict between the United States and Iran.  Nukes for peace?

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles

This line of reasoning would imply that a successful Iranian nuclear will probably prevent direct conflict between the United States and Iran.  Nukes for peace?

Only if Iran is as rational as the former Soviet Union and that's debatable.

[Arrow]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mefistofeles

Quote
Without the nuclear deterent, these proxy fights wouldn't have happened. Instead, US and USSR forces would had duked it out directly in Europe

This line of reasoning would imply that a successful Iranian nuclear will probably prevent direct conflict between the United States and Iran.  Nukes for peace?

Well, the fact that Pakistian and India haven't started a nuclear war, and given how close they came to armed conflict recently, I have hope for Iran. The Islamic hardliners will be a problem, but the moderates seem to have a significant amount of power in the country and appear to be more or less as rational as anybody else.

[Overkill]

Quote
Do you prefer full scale war or proxy wars?

And the logical answer to that is neither.

Quote
And before WW2 the same fact was a reality. Maybe some of us should admit that war is a part of human nature and that it can't always be avoided.

No, it wasn't. The 19th century for example only suffered one major war of any kind, anywhere, in 30 years. Between 18 and 1913 there was no major war at all in Europe, one in Africa, and two in the far east in 40 years.  The biggest problems came with collapse of the "sick man of europe" and the emancipaton of the Balkans countries. But even then the "great powers" were not sucked in. That's why historians often talk of the great war coming as a "surprise".  

The period between WW1 and 2 was unique. WW1 was responsible for the breaking up of three major empires, the rise of nationalism, the birth of communism and the sweeping way of the established order of European (and elsewhere) life. THe psot war sitauiton was no different in many ways to the friction between  the great powers in the 19th C. Again they did things by proxy, with stand offs allover the Imperial frontiers. Unlike the 20th century though, those standoffs normally ended peacefully, as the diplomats eased tensions. That didnt happen in the above flashpoints. So again, so much for diplomacy.

I also wonder how many GIs' who fought in Vietnam would appreciate the view that "proxy wars" were fine?    

Quote
Instead, US and USSR forces would had duked it out directly in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

Why? The nuclear detterent was meant to stop war between the two ideologies. We've already seen that apart from a direct conflict it didn't, and the fomer is not historicaly unusual, and has little to do with MAD. Even then there were moments when the two sides came within an ace of "pushing the button", and only sensible officers on the ground saved the day. Personally, terrific though those men were, i'd rather not have the fate of the World hanging on the actions of a few soldiers facing each other across a Berlin street.  

[Arrow]

Quote
Why? The nuclear detterent was meant to stop war between the two ideologies. We've already seen that apart from a direct conflict it didn't, and the fomer is not historicaly unusual, and has little to do with MAD. Even then there were moments when the two sides came within an ace of "pushing the button", and only sensible officers on the ground saved the day. Personally, terrific though those men were, i'd rather not have the fate of the World hanging on the actions of a few soldiers facing each other across a Berlin street.

No, the deterent was meant to stop war between the superpowers, and even you agree that it did that. Those men that kept nuclear war from occuring were the leaders on both sides; they knew perfectly well that going to war would destroy everything they and forefathers had worked for, and that they had no hope of winning.

Soviet/Marxist Communism and Western Capitalism are complete opposites and are bound to come into conflict with one-another. To say that the nuclear deterent was meant to stop a conflict of ideologies is to define it so that it natural fails. I find that logic to be completely unrealistic. You must admit that one or a few of the numerious flashpoints of the Cold War would have created a world war and generated causalities and destruction that would had at least rivaled the two previous wars (and probably would had far surpassed both combined).

Nuclear weapons prevented all out wars. You and I are most likely here because nuclear weapons exist.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: Overkill

No, it wasn't. The 19th century for example only suffered one major war of any kind, anywhere, in 30 years. Between 18 and 1913 there was no major war at all in Europe, one in Africa, and two in the far east in 40 years.  The biggest problems came with collapse of the "sick man of europe" and the emancipaton of the Balkans countries. But even then the "great powers" were not sucked in. That's why historians often talk of the great war coming as a "surprise".  

They were too busy with the bloodshed involved with the various coups they formed against their governments, lest you forget those and up until the World Wars, Napolean's conquest of the continent was the largest war in human history.  France was a complete shambles for YEARS after that with it's revolving door governments.  Not to mention the fact that with colonialism they exported their warmongering to the rest of the world instead of keeping it localized.

Quote
The period between WW1 and 2 was unique. WW1 was responsible for the breaking up of three major empires, the rise of nationalism, the birth of communism and the sweeping way of the established order of European (and elsewhere) life. THe post war sitauiton was no different in many ways to the friction between  the great powers in the 19th C. Again they did things by proxy, with stand offs allover the Imperial frontiers. Unlike the 20th century though, those standoffs normally ended peacefully, as the diplomats eased tensions. That didnt happen in the above flashpoints. So again, so much for diplomacy.

I also wonder how many GIs' who fought in Vietnam would appreciate the view that "proxy wars" were fine?  

Depends on whether or not they were privy to the context in which we're discussing this.  Ask the Russians if they'd prefer Afghanistan or the 10 million dead from World War 2.    

Quote
Why? The nuclear detterent was meant to stop war between the two ideologies. We've already seen that apart from a direct conflict it didn't, and the fomer is not historicaly unusual, and has little to do with MAD. Even then there were moments when the two sides came within an ace of "pushing the button", and only sensible officers on the ground saved the day. Personally, terrific though those men were, i'd rather not have the fate of the World hanging on the actions of a few soldiers facing each other across a Berlin street.

The Soviet/US standoff was very real.  In fact, several generals, including Patton, advocated war with the Soviets as soon as we wrapped up Germany and Japan.  MAD made sure both sides realized they couldn't win and forced them to pursue other avenues to exercise nationalistic pride.  That's why you saw such importance with the space race, olympic competition, and other non-violent pursuits.  It's no coincendence that people are watching the olympics far less now than in the cold war and it's also no coincidence our space program is languishing like never before.  It's just not important because we don't have an enemy and make no mistake, the Soviets were our enemy.  The only thing that kept that situation from coming to blows over Cuba, East Europe, the Middle East, the Suez Canal, South America, Southeast Asia, and just about anywhere else was MAD.  

[Overkill]

Quote
No, the deterent was meant to stop war between the superpowers, and even you agree that it did that. Those men that kept nuclear war from occuring were the leaders on both sides; they knew perfectly well that going to war would destroy everything they and forefathers had worked for, and that they had no hope of winning.

The orginal point was that the nuclear threat gave Reagan the opportunity to indulge in "sabre rattling , sorry "bargaining from a position of strength". If that is the case the your whole argument that nuclear weapons are merely for defence, and that neither side would use them falls down - flat. Add to that the fact that both sides were constantly looking for an "edge" in the arms race and the whole idea that they "would never use them" also falls flat. There wer generals on both sides who thought a nuclear war was "winnable".

I notice you also avoid the issue, that being, that although no direct war took place, in fact both sides did indulge in combat all over the World. Again the stated intention of nuclear WMD's was that this wouldn't happen. All that in fact happened was that both sides found a way around an all out war on the obvious frontiers.

Quote
France was a complete shambles for YEARS after that with it's revolving door governments

Pardon? I think you're getting a little muddled up. France went back to a monarchy, then recovered its strength under Napoleon III sufficently to be a major European broker again long before its colonial period.  

Quote
They were too busy with the bloodshed involved with the various coups they formed against their governments

Such as?

Quote
Ask the Russians if they'd prefer Afghanistan or the 10 million dead from World War 2.

Erm, 27 million dead, not including those liquidated in Concentration camps. I doubt anybody wanted a major war to break out, which was why I made the orginal point. Many felt, (with justification) that Ronnies bluster would lead to exactly that.

Quote
It's no coincendence that people are watching the olympics far less now than in the cold war and it's also no coincidence our space program is languishing like never before

Thats funny I thought that was down to overpricing of hotels and tickets, while the latter was down to expense. I also seem to recall that Sydney was one of the most succesful olympics ever.

I wouldn't argue that there was an edge to things due to East West rivalry, but economics ended the Cold war, as it did so many other things - including the space race.

MAD so nearly happened, too many times, for it to be a commendable or successful idea....................  

[Arrow]

Quote
The orginal point was that the nuclear threat gave Reagan the opportunity to indulge in "sabre rattling , sorry "bargaining from a position of strength". If that is the case the your whole argument that nuclear weapons are merely for defence, and that neither side would use them falls down - flat. Add to that the fact that both sides were constantly looking for an "edge" in the arms race and the whole idea that they "would never use them" also falls flat. There wer generals on both sides who thought a nuclear war was "winnable".

Sorry, but the sabre rattling was going on LONG before Reagan took office. And you seem to be forgetting that both sides (and including Reagan's administration) engaged in arms control and reductions talks. And you're still avoiding the point that neither side actually engaged in direct warfare.

And (yes, bad grammer, but its late) you're ignoring the fact that I'm applying the MAD policy to smaller countries that don't have the means to engage in proxy wars. At best, with a nuclear deterent on both sides, two small countries would realistically only be able to engage in espionage and low-risk sabatoge mission. An open engagement simply wouldn't be worth the risk - they would either annihilate each other and/or face an unified world military (major power) response. The nuclear deterent makes open war far, far too costly to attempt.

Quote
I notice you also avoid the issue, that being, that although no direct war took place, in fact both sides did indulge in combat all over the World. Again the stated intention of nuclear WMD's was that this wouldn't happen. All that in fact happened was that both sides found a way around an all out war on the obvious frontiers.

No, actually I readily admit that both sides engaged in proxy wars; it was a natural result of the two powers not being able to directly engage each other. The end result, however, is that both sides continually engaged in dialog and the death toll was, for all intents and purposes, minimized. I don't know what overly idealistic "stated intention of nuclear WMD's" you're using, but the one I was taugh and continue to use is that the nuclear deterent was meant to prevent another world-war. It always pulled the super powers' leaders back from the brink. It was a failsafe. And it worked.

[Overkill]

Quote
Sorry, but the sabre rattling was going on LONG before Reagan took office. And you seem to be forgetting that both sides (and including Reagan's administration) engaged in arms control and reductions talks. And you're still avoiding the point that neither side actually engaged in direct warfare.

Sorry, but according to your "fellow Americans" that's not the case, hence Reagan was elected. Reagan only engaged in arms reduction when it became obvious even to him that he was getting nowhere with the aggression, and that Gorby was willing to talk rather than indulge in the usual tit for tat. I'm not avoiding any point. That wasn't the orginal issue.

Quote
you're ignoring the fact that I'm applying the MAD policy to smaller countries that don't have the means to engage in proxy wars

Such as? India and Pakistan have both had the nuclear detterent for decades and yet in that time they've both attacked each other. I can't thing of too many other "minor powers" who have the nuclear capabality and the enemies to use it on.

Quote
The end result, however, is that both sides continually engaged in dialog and the death toll was, for all intents and purposes, minimized. I don't know what overly idealistic "stated intention of nuclear WMD's" you're using, but the one I was taugh and continue to use is that the nuclear deterent was meant to prevent another world-war. It always pulled the super powers' leaders back from the brink. It was a failsafe. And it worked.

Minimized!!!!??? What a disgraceful attitude!!! Literally millions have died in the East / West contest all over the World and that's acceptable??? Christ, i'd love to see you take that argument up with a few Cambodians!!! The nuclear detterent only stopped  a conflict on the obvious borders. It didn't stop massive loss of life in the same conflict elsewhere.  In fact statistics show that in the intervening years since WW2 the Cold war claimed as many lives as were lost in WW2 itself. So much for preventing a major war. It just spread it thinner.............

That whole attitude smacks of "we were all right jack so it must have worked". End

[iwakefie]

The millions of Cambodians that died, died because of Pol Pot, a genocidal maniac, you made even Hitler look good by comparison. Only China supported him. As for the Proxy wars, whilst the Super Powers did get involved, they were not usually the ones who started them.

Examples;
Korea - North invaded South, and the USSR/China supported the North, and the UN supported the South.
Vietnam - North invaded South, and the USSR supported the North, and the US supported the South.

It is possible for wars/conflicts to happen without Super Power involvement, and quite a few of those are usually the ones with the heaviest civilian casualties (indeed delibrately so). Cambodia, and Rwanda for examples, and closer to home in Europe; Bosnia.

[Arrow]

Quote
Sorry, but according to your "fellow Americans" that's not the case, hence Reagan was elected. Reagan only engaged in arms reduction when it became obvious even to him that he was getting nowhere with the aggression, and that Gorby was willing to talk rather than indulge in the usual tit for tat. I'm not avoiding any point. That wasn't the orginal issue.

So, they realized aggression was useless because of deterrent and engage in dialog. How exactly does this refute my point, because it sure as hell seems to support my position.

Quote
Such as? India and Pakistan have both had the nuclear detterent for decades and yet in that time they've both attacked each other. I can't thing of too many other "minor powers" who have the nuclear capabality and the enemies to use it on.

And yet oddly enough, they've haven't come to full scale war in that time. I wonder why...

Quote
Minimized!!!!??? What a disgraceful attitude!!! Literally millions have died in the East / West contest all over the World and that's acceptable??? Christ, i'd love to see you take that argument up with a few Cambodians!!! The nuclear detterent only stopped a conflict on the obvious borders. It didn't stop massive loss of life in the same conflict elsewhere. In fact statistics show that in the intervening years since WW2 the Cold war claimed as many lives as were lost in WW2 itself. So much for preventing a major war. It just spread it thinner.............

Would you have preferred hundreds of millions dead? How does total devastation in Europe, the Middle East and Asia sound? We could also add Latin America and South America to that list as well. Remember, the Chinese, while Communist, weren't keen on the Soviet Union. Its not much of a stretch to see those two powers get into a war with each other, especially considering the US/Chinese diplomacy started by Nixon.

You're glossing over the fact that violence between capitalism and communism was inevitable, simply because of the violent revolutionary theme that was at the core of Marxism. The fact that the world survived that clash of ideologies without total devastation is amazing, and the nuclear deterent was one of the drive forces, if not the key force, behind that fact.

....

I think this is going to have to be an "agree-to-disagree" argument.

[Babar]

Let me clarify my assertion that the theory of mutual assured destruction (MAD) no longer holds water.

I never said that it never HELD water. I am saying that it isn't applicable in today's world. Indeed, MAD prevailed throughout most of the Cold War when two countries held sufficient arms to completely annihilate the other. In fact MAD was a sort of illusion even then as it was shown that in the 1960s the nuclear capability of the Soviet Union was less than 10% of that of the United States. I have exact figures somewhere and can post it if need be, but that isn't really pertinent to my argument here. MAD theory held that the US wouldn't launch nukes at the USSR b/c the USSR had the capability of launching retaliatory nukes within 10 minutes, forcing us to launch more nukes to counter theirs, and back and forth, hence 'mutual assured destruction' as 'proportional response' would be carried to the extreme.

However with the decline of the USSR and the spread of the USSR's old nukes to its breakaway countries, as well as the development of "new" nuclear "players" (Pakistan, N. Korea, China), MAD must be abandoned in favor of Finite Assured Destruction, a theory that asserts that the power of merely one nuclear weapon is good enough to serve as deterrent. If you remember, when MAD theory was first developed, nukes were barely more powerful than Little Boy and Fat Man which were about about a dozen KILOTONS of TNT equivalent. Today's nuclear weapons approach 50 MEGATONS of TNT equivalent, or 3,850 times more powerful than the 'original' nukes.

Finite Assured Destruction, as you can guess, stipulates that no-country is willing to suffer the consequences of even one nuclear weapon considering the magnitude of the damage it would cause. Finite Assured Destruction obviously applies to the U.S. as well, as we aren't willing to risk damage from modern nuclear weapons. Today's most worrisome nuclear powers and/or nuclear developers (Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan, even Israel) do not have the capability to engage in MAD-style nuclear exchanges, hence my assertion the theory no longer holds water.

If you notice, the US has never *directly* attacked a country possessing nuclear weapons. Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Grenada, Iraq, and many other countries I forget about, did not have nuclear capability when we attacked them. You will also note in the future that we will most likely not touch Iran if it is suspected that they have a nuclear weapon, as they most certainly will use it if attacked. We aren't going to take the risk, period.

Lastly, if you will notice, the countries we attack don't just lay over and play dead because we have nuclear weapons. A bit odd, don't you think? Consider that the international community as a whole frowns on the use of nuclear weapons these days. If we had nuked Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, you can betcha there would have been a huge international backlash against us. Same goes for Cuba, etc. Because of this, nuclear weapons are very obviously a weapon of last resort, a classification only given to defensive weapons. Indeed, today's nuclear weapons, for that reason, are built for deterrence purposes, for security and defense, not because the country wants to annihilate its enemies. The Cold War is over, and Cold War mentalities are obsolete; we need to focus on the dynamics of today's world.