Iran test fires missile capable of reaching US bases or Israel

[Berkut]

Rampant speculation used to justify our own unwillingness to do anything about anything.

If we are so afraid that the crazies will go even more crazy if we oppose them, then I guess they have won. So sit back and enjoy the show.

I would argue that even if we are so afraid that taking action will result in some horrendous uprising of crazy muslims (I thought most of them were actually very moderate???), then it is going to happen anyway. It can happen now, or we can wait until they nuke something, and it will happen after we respond to that, which we will be forced to do.

We can (and will) wait until they force our hand I guess. I suppose you can even make an argument that perhaps that really is for the best - the West is scarily proficient at making war, perhaps we should be dragged to it kicking and screaming as the very last resort, to only be taken after something horrific enough that we cannot decline to act any longer?

[Darth Wagtaros]

Really?  That would work?  Wouldn't a preventative strike just make every other nutball want nukes that much faster?  Once you have them and can delier them or give them to the crazies you are kind of immune to attacks eh?

I can't think of any way to prevent nutballs from wanting nukes. Can you?

Not at all.  That wasn't really my point. Devil's advocate here, so the US drops the hammer on some shithole for working towards a nuclear capacity, would you, as El Presidente de Craziville, walk away from a nuclear program or would you try harder to get it to have a bargaining ship? 

[Darth Wagtaros]

Rampant speculation used to justify our own unwillingness to do anything about anything.

If we are so afraid that the crazies will go even more crazy if we oppose them, then I guess they have won. So sit back and enjoy the show.

I would argue that even if we are so afraid that taking action will result in some horrendous uprising of crazy muslims (I thought most of them were actually very moderate???), then it is going to happen anyway. It can happen now, or we can wait until they nuke something, and it will happen after we respond to that, which we will be forced to do.

We can (and will) wait until they force our hand I guess. I suppose you can even make an argument that perhaps that really is for the best - the West is scarily proficient at making war, perhaps we should be dragged to it kicking and screaming as the very last resort, to only be taken after something horrific enough that we cannot decline to act any longer?

That is one sure way of getting popular support for damn near any level of response.  Fifty years down th e road our retaliation would be held up as a model of modern barbarism, but it would likely get results.

[Berkut]

Really?  That would work?  Wouldn't a preventative strike just make every other nutball want nukes that much faster?  Once you have them and can delier them or give them to the crazies you are kind of immune to attacks eh?

I can't think of any way to prevent nutballs from wanting nukes. Can you?

Not at all.  That wasn't really my point. Devil's advocate here, so the US drops the hammer on some shithole for working towards a nuclear capacity, would you, as El Presidente de Craziville, walk away from a nuclear program or would you try harder to get it to have a bargaining ship? 

If the West had made it clear that it was actually willing to drop the hammer on shithole countries trying to get nukes, then I would certainly walk away, unless I was on the verge of getting them and though I could do so secretly.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Really?  That would work?  Wouldn't a preventative strike just make every other nutball want nukes that much faster?  Once you have them and can delier them or give them to the crazies you are kind of immune to attacks eh?

I can't think of any way to prevent nutballs from wanting nukes. Can you?

Not at all.  That wasn't really my point. Devil's advocate here, so the US drops the hammer on some shithole for working towards a nuclear capacity, would you, as El Presidente de Craziville, walk away from a nuclear program or would you try harder to get it to have a bargaining ship? 

If the West had made it clear that it was actually willing to drop the hammer on shithole countries trying to get nukes, then I would certainly walk away, unless I was on the verge of getting them and though I could do so secretly.

The West doesn't have the cobbles to do that, and the bad guys know it.  This is all just pie in the sky.  I know, I am being Captain Obvious in Valmy's place. 

[Neil]

Is someone trying to make the argument that the West (the US in particular) could not stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon through massive airpower applied against both their nuclear program *and* their political and economic infrastructure?

In so doing we would demolish most of the Middle East.  Insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq would spiral out of control as would Shi'ite minorities throughout the greater Middle East, from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. 

Videos of thousands of dead Iranian civilians would be everywhere, the Twelver cult of Martyrdom would go nuts, etc....

You are looking at this as an isolated incident.  A prolonged bombing campaign against Iran wouldn't be.  That's an impossibility.  The western will to fight relatively unsupported insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq is waning thin as is, imagine if Iran put all their remaining manpower and weapons behind undermining our efforts in the Middle East?

Wasn't  this the argument against invading Iraq?

[Queequeg]

I would argue that even if we are so afraid that taking action will result in some horrendous uprising of crazy muslims (I thought most of them were actually very moderate???), then it is going to happen anyway. It can happen now, or we can wait until they nuke something, and it will happen after we respond to that, which we will be forced to do.

Iran is, generally speaking, a rational player I think.  The Mullahs have been in control for 30 years.  They know what they are doing, and they are fat and accustomed to power.  They have little to gain from seeing Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz and all the rest nuked.   That said, they have an invested interest in appearing to be irrational so that their hypothetical nuke would seem a lot more dangerous.  This would appear to be a paradox (that is, rational players acting irrational for rational reasons), but in reality it isn't.  Ronald Reagen (PBUH) did something similar with the Soviets; nukes and the threat of war really only mean anything when the opponent thinks you are crazy enough to use it, even though you really aren't.

That said, this is a good debate; I am not totally sure if the Iranian government is fundamentally rational. I can think as much, but you are just as entitled to your opinion here.  This is the legitimate debate, what we were doing before was basically fantasizing.  If we posit that Iran is fundamentally irrational, I think drastic measures (full naval blockade, limited strikes) would make sense, though I think some kind of aerial flattening of Iran is insane.  If they are rational, then we should treat them as such, despite their belligerence. 

[Queequeg]

Wasn't  this the argument against invading Iraq?

How would Iraq've flooded Afghanistan with weapons?  And I think we can all  (with the exception of Hans, obviously) agree that the Iraq invasion was retarded in retrospect.

[Neil]

Wasn't  this the argument against invading Iraq?

How would Iraq've flooded Afghanistan with weapons?  And I think we can all  (with the exception of Hans, obviously) agree that the Iraq invasion was retarded in retrospect.

Really?  I think it was pretty much a wash.  It just didn't matter very much.

People were arguing that invading the Middle East would cause all Muslims to unite and destroy the West.

[Queequeg]

Really?  I think it was pretty much a wash.  It just didn't matter very much.

People were arguing that invading the Middle East would cause all Muslims to unite and destroy the West.

The Arabs haven't won a meaningful battle by themselves in hundreds of years.  I certainly wasn't arguing that. 

[jimmy olsen]

Wasn't  this the argument against invading Iraq?

How would Iraq've flooded Afghanistan with weapons?  And I think we can all  (with the exception of Hans, obviously) agree that the Iraq invasion was retarded in retrospect.

Afghanistan is already flooded with weapons, what kind of weapons are you talking about? Anti-aircraft weapons?

If we actually went through with a strike like Berkut's proposing, the bridges and roads going through the mountain passes leading to Afghanistan would be struck.

[Neil]

Really?  I think it was pretty much a wash.  It just didn't matter very much.

People were arguing that invading the Middle East would cause all Muslims to unite and destroy the West.

The Arabs haven't won a meaningful battle by themselves in hundreds of years.  I certainly wasn't arguing that.

Of course you were.  You'll always argue against standing up to the enemies of civilization.

Besides, the Arabs have only had states for less than a hundred years, and have never participated in a major war.

[Queequeg]

Afghanistan is already flooded with weapons, what kind of weapons are you talking about? Anti-aircraft weapons?

If we actually went through with a strike like Berkut's proposing, the bridges and roads going through the mountain passes leading to Afghanistan would be struck.

Right now the peaceful part of Afghanistan is near the Iranian border and is populated with ethnic Persians.  And I'd think that one of the few things we've learned about Afghanistan in the last 30 years is that the borders all around are porous; the Soviets couldn't stop it, how could we?

And I doubt they have an infinite supply of weapons other than Mosin-Nagants that predate the conception of my grandfather and cheap AK-47 knockoffs.   

[Ender]

Why are you surprised they haven't attacked Iran yet?

Once Iran gets the bomb, they're done for.

I doubt it.

[Faeelin]

Rampant speculation used to justify our own unwillingness to do anything about anything.

If we are so afraid that the crazies will go even more crazy if we oppose them, then I guess they have won. So sit back and enjoy the show.

I would argue that even if we are so afraid that taking action will result in some horrendous uprising of crazy muslims (I thought most of them were actually very moderate???), then it is going to happen anyway. It can happen now, or we can wait until they nuke something, and it will happen after we respond to that, which we will be forced to do.

How is it crazy to respond to a declaration of war (which is what bombing Iran would be) with acts of war?