Destroying Iran's Nuclear Capabilities

[christcnection1]

True. But this is very different than Iraq. Iran has said openly that they have a nuclear program and have made several threats, usually in farsi, against us and Israel. So all the intelligence we need is on the nightly news.

Didn’t Saddam also claim to have a “weapons of mass destructions” list? Perhaps their rhetoric is more sizzle than steak, and our intelligence is sorely lacking.

I am not sure the evidence is as clear as you make it out to be. However, I could very well be wrong.

 

[christcnection1]

To me, the circumstances matter, as does ‘direct’ vs. ‘proxy’. Again, it comes down to ultimate objectives. With Iraq we have already greatly enhanced Iran’s influence and power in the region.

What I most want to avoid is making the current rhetoric real. That is I do not want to promote a nasty gangster regime into an Islamic world power. Saddam dreamed of it, but as a secular dictator, could not be it. It is still far fetched with Iran, but the idea still scares me.

My biggest concern is that the US is currently not even all that sincere. Once the rhetoric switched suddenly from AQI to Iran backed militias I started to worry that US politics are being triangulated in. After all, we are now talking about something other than Iraq, and the related problems of Turkey and Pakistan.

I know it is an unpleasant thought, but look at Iraq. All the main characters here are Project for the New American Century folks. Of course, long term strategic occupation for US interests - namely oil, was/is a goal. You don’t write about something for 10 years, then abandon all your thinking when you actually get to act. But we have yet to have an open policy debate about it. And it still matters. The Iraqi’s see the largest embassy on the planet, billions spent on permanent bases, etc. And it fits the Islam extremist rhetoric. Likewise, there have been attempts to get the administration to openly commit to no permanent bases to help cut the unrest and violence, and we’ve been coy instead.

This lets the enemy shape the narrative in the region and helps keep us isolated from more support in the global community.

I think that the same risk is occuring in Iran. We are heating up the rhetoric, but our stated strategic goals remain vague at best. Remember, the same international agency that was right about Iraq’s nuclear program won’t backup our assertions about Iran either.

If our principle concern was/is Iran, then I still think we would do well to aide some other player in taking up the issue in the ‘court of world opinion’. We currently have no global credibility. Getting angry or indignant does not change that. So if we are serious about the issue and really want results, I think we should be using less rhetoric and doing more coallition building.

Yes… especially at this time. I was trying to get your opinion if all hell broke loose in the middle east. Of course, it’s impossible to weigh or understand all the dynamics of what might be. All of this is speculative. It certainly appears that far more could be done diplomatically and otherwise to foster stability in the region. It appears the policies of this administration are not a conduit of this mentality.

Blessings,

JB

 

[LRThunder]

I don’t think so. What are diplomats for? What is the human mind for ? Is the human mind supposed to be used to kill and A-Bomb children or is it supposed to be used to promote peace and peaceful resolution of problems? Why not try for peace and diplomatic resolution of problems instead of A-Bombing children? I believe that this use of A-Bombs on children is insane. And further it is contrary to the commandment:
Thou shalt not kill.

Once again, it was not an easy choice but the alternative would’ve been just as bloody and stretched out over time.

As explained above, the Japanese believed in serving the emperor, whom they believed as a deity. They even launched suicidal attacks called kamikazis by flying their planes into our ships.

Negotiating a peace would’ve worked with Germany and Italy, but Japan wasn’t a western nation and thus we had to work differently in bringing about an end to the war.

 

[edwest2]

It is OK to be young. Forgive me, but you don’t sound like someone who was 18 before 1973. We always talk about lottery number, deferrment, alternate service, etc.

Also, you are a little hazy on history. Nixon expanded the war. He defying congress and began bombing a neighboring country. The war ended because a Democratic Congress stopped providing funds. Even though the war was spectacularly unpopular, even though we are talking about millions of veterens and compulsory service, and even though the direct costs were mounting in a dismall economy, there was political fall out. Even I resented it and I hated the war.

That is why today’s Democratic Congress is so leary to do the same thing with Iraq. This war is not being fought by middle America, but a tiny number of sorely abused volunteers. We aren’t even paying for it, we are financing it with China and leaving a bill for great grandchildren to pay. The thinking is that war is more palatable when most Americans are insulated from it, so the political fallout from a messy end will be greater.

But I am most interested in your use of the term “debacle”. Our current leadership think Vietnam was a wonderful idea. Neither the president or his VP wished to serve, but both actively supported the war. In fact, the president just compared Iraq to the “mistake” of ending the war in Vietnam.

These are the folks doing the fear mongering about Iran, and who also told us now debunked stories and WMDs and AQ ties in Iraq. If you haven’t seen eye to eye with them on foreign policy for decades, why so anxious to adopt their ‘might first’ policies again now?

During his election campaign, Nixon promised to end the war.

kansaspress.ku.edu/kimnix.html

The US had been involved in Vietnam since 1945. The Tonkin Gulf Incident has been revealed to have been a fake. I’m sure you’ve seen Lyndon Johnson’s quote: “Get me elected and you can have your ****** war.” What was sold to the public was the Domino Theory; i.e. we lose Vietnam to the Communists and other dominoes in the region will fall.

I have no political party affiliation, which some in this country regard as being as important, or in place of, their religious beliefs. I believe Democrats and Republicans are equally capable of coming up with dumb ideas. I don’t believe anyone should be compelled to vote out of “party loyalty.”

The only reason I bring up the might policy is because I saw it work with the Russians. In the end, I believe, neither side wanted to be wiped out. Also, it became clearer to both sides, as the Cold War dragged on, that there was no such thing as a limited nuclear exchange, not when you are talking about multi-megaton warheads. Any such exchange would have had short-term and long-term effects.

My point has been, and continues to be, no one here will have any say about bombing, or not bombing, Iran. I have had the pleasure of meeting some brave, young men on their way to deployment in Iraq. Not one of them stood around debating the current administration’s wisdom in starting the war or sending them there. Just like my father, their country called and they accepted.

Yes, I believe Vietnam was a debacle. Military analysts knew for a long time how the enemy fought, but regardless of the carpet bombing, helicopters and generally superior technology of the US, the war dragged on from 1964 to 1973. Compare that to World War II where America was fighting on two fronts.

Respectfully,
Ed

 

[bobzills]

Once again, it was not an easy choice but the alternative would’ve been just as bloody and stretched out over time.

Wrong. The choice was easy. Thou shalt not kill. And this means thou shalt not kill and A-Bomb children who have nothing to do with your filthy political games.

 

[bobzills]

Once again, it was not an easy choice but the alternative would’ve been just as bloody and stretched out over time.

Wrong. The choice was easy. Thou shalt not kill. And this means thou shalt not kill and A-Bomb children who have nothing to do with your filthy political games.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Let’s use diplomats and diplomacy to promote peace.

 

[Elric]

Wrong. The choice was easy. Thou shalt not kill. And this means thou shalt not kill and A-Bomb children who have nothing to do with your filthy political games.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Let’s use diplomats and diplomacy to promote peace.

Unfortunatly this does not even come close to describing the situation with Japan at that time.

The only diplomacy that the Japaniese were interested in was the total and unconditional surrender of every nation to their rule, which would have cost quite a lot of lives as every race was (and still is ) inferior to the pure Nippon race. Take a look at what they did to POWs in their care as well as innocent civilians (children too) before you judge those that chose to drop the bomb too harshly. You will find terms like “cruelty”, “inhumane” and “torture” will pop up quite often.

We are talking about a people who had no regard for their own lives (kamakazi pilots) much less anyone that wasnt Nipponiese, how would diplomats be able to reach any sort of compirmise with people like this?

The situation was quite literally hit Japan with a blow that was so devestating that it would scare the crud out of them but would save lives in the long run, or face a war that would last months/years to complete that would cost most likely millions of lives and would have to result with wiping Japan off the map.

That is the decision the leaders were faced with, there was no room for diplomacy because the Nipponiese were not interested in such things.

Truth be told it is a decision that cant fathom trying to make, its one that I really wish didnt need to made, but as bad as it was the decision was made and a lot of families would most likely be glad that they chose the one they did.

 

[SoCalRC]

During his election campaign, Nixon promised to end the war.

What is your point? Politicians promise a lot of things. In actuality, Nixon expanded the war and it was Congress, not Nixon, that ended it.

There is some sense to “speak softly and carry a big stick”, but it relies heavily on the perception of power. Do you think that being bogged down in Iraq and having Afghanistan turn back the the Taliban enhances the global perception of US military power?

That is the problem with a ‘strategic strike’ in Iran. You kill civilians, strengthen the hardliners, destabilize the region, and for what? A few setbacks in a program that Iran can spend billions on because the world wants oil?

Why rattle the sabre, when you aren’t really clear on what you want and your ‘enemy’ can plainly see that your strategic military options are limited?

It makes little sense, which is why I worry it has more to do with US domestic politics than legitimate foreign policy.

 

[SoCalRC]

That is the decision the leaders were faced with, there was no room for diplomacy because the Nipponiese were not interested in such things.

Demonizing fellow children of God is not helpful either. There was a dove movement in Japan, and we were negotiating. Remember, when we dropped the bombs, VE had passed, all attention was on the pacific theatre.

The major sticking point in negotiations was keeping the emporer. We insisted on “unconditional surrender”. After the bombs, we negotiated a peace, and allowed the Japanese to keep their emporer.

No one is saying that the decision was easy. My point was that even many Japanese seem to be able to comprehend part of our decision. But we should not rewrite history to make the decision seem obvious or inherently compassionate.

 

[bobzills]

No one is saying that the decision was easy.

I do. I say it was easy to refuse to kill and A-Bomb children, because of the Commandment: Thou Shalt not kill.
Blessed are the peacemakers.

 

[Elric]

Demonizing fellow children of God is not helpful either. There was a dove movement in Japan, and we were negotiating. Remember, when we dropped the bombs, VE had passed, all attention was on the pacific theatre.

Demonizing?

I dont see how I was doing that.

The major sticking point in negotiations was keeping the emporer. We insisted on “unconditional surrender”. After the bombs, we negotiated a peace, and allowed the Japanese to keep their emporer.

No one is saying that the decision was easy. My point was that even many Japanese seem to be able to comprehend part of our decision. But we should not rewrite history to make the decision seem obvious or inherently compassionate.

Who is trying to rewrite history?

 

[Elric]

I do.

Unfortunatly you are wrong.

I say it was easy to refuse to kill and A-Bomb children, because of the Commandment: Thou Shalt not kill.
Blessed are the peacemakers.

There was already killing happening, which both sides were guilty of. They were push back to Japan and they still had no intention of giving up, what alternatives were there?

Nobody is saying that dropping atomic bombs was a good thing, it wasnt. It should have really taught us that some things should not be used, instead of how to refine such weapons and make them bigger and better. But it doesnt answer what else could have realisticly been done at the time.

Hindsight is a great thing and makes it very easy to say “you shouldnt kill or A-bomb children”, but it doesnt really help in learning the lessons from such devestation.

 

[bobzills]

There was already killing happening, which both sides were guilty of.

In my personal opinion, this does not justify the murder of innocent children by dropping an A-Bomb on them. Nor is the murder of innocent children justified because the US wants to establish its rule of law on a certain geographical area or country.
By the way, what is contained in the USA rule of law anyway?
Let’s see:

1. The right to abortion on demand.
2. The right to pornography on demand.
3. The right to blasphemous movies on demand.
   And is the USA really a democracy after all? What is the percentage of people who are against the Iraq war as opposed to those who are in favor of Bush’s policies. What is the percentage of people who are in favor of the use of torture and sexual humiliation to extract confessions? What is the percentage who are in favor of rendition?

 

[Elric]

In my personal opinion, this does not justify the murder of innocent children by dropping an A-Bomb on them.

Your personal opinion is all well and good, but you are not giving any viable alternatives to what happened or showing any understanding to what the situation was back then. All your doing is hanging it on people who were in an impossible situation,
saying how wrong it is to kill innocent children (which was already happening) and saying its wrong to kill (again, already happening).

Nor is the murder of innocent children justified because the US wants to establish its rule of law on a certain geographical area or country.

There was actually a little more to it than this.

Japan was actually trying to establish its rule (by force) over a geographical area and were guilty of a number of atrocities while doing so. Comming from a country that was EXTREMLY close to being invaded by Japan, I am glad that they were stopped and forced back.

So it was actually about stopping a power from forcefully taking over other countries and ending a destructive war.

By the way, what is contained in the USA rule of law anyway?
Let’s see:

1. The right to abortion on demand.
2. The right to pornography on demand.
3. The right to blasphemous movies on demand.
   And is the USA really a democracy after all? What is the percentage of people who are against the Iraq war as opposed to those who are in favor of Bush’s policies. What is the percentage of people who are in favor of the use of torture and sexual humiliation to extract confessions? What is the percentage who are in favor of rendition?

Well that is a tad different to detonating atomic weapons, but I think “on demand” is a bit inaccurate.

I agree that the US should have a good look at itself before it judges other countries (especally for things that the US does), especally when it claims to be a christian nation.

 

[bobzills]

Iran is not the only third world country which has agreements or contracts on nuclear power and where operations are going ahead. According to the world nuclear association, the following thrid world countries have operations which are going ahead:
Morocco
Libya
Eqypt
Turkey
Yemen
Israel
and the following countries have made serious studies with an eye toward nuclear power:
Algeria
Tunisia
Saudi Arabia
Syria
And many other countries already have nuclear power plants operating.
So it would be counterproductive for the USA to bomb nuclear facilities, and not only that, but in the end it would not succeed, but perhaps it would cause the USA to be even more disliked than it is today. According to the pew global attitudes project, the percentage with an unfavorable view of the US are:
Turkey - 83% (unfavorable)
Pakistan - 68
Morocco 56
Aregentina - 72
Jordan 78
Egypt - 78
Malaysia - 69
Indonesia - 66
Germany - 66
Spain - 60.

 

[SoCalRC]

Who is trying to rewrite history?

Forgive me, I have the benefit of multiple eye witness accounts, and, as noted, considerable study on the matter.

No one is saying that Japan was not acting horribly - I spent many hours with a Mitsubishi plant survivor, hearing the experience in his words. But Bobzills is right, we have to be carefully in rationalizing horrific acts ourselfs. Remember, WE had a massive eugenics movement here in the US and wrote the model for Germany’s ethnic purity law.

Further, we were just one generation removed from our own horrific eugenics campaign against Native Americans. And, of course, just two generations removed from our own geographic conquest and expansion and slavery.

You keep asking, ‘what other choice?’, how about containment and isolation? Japan has virtually no natural resources. It has to have access to raw materials from beyond its borders to support a war machine. The only reason that a ‘deadly invasion’ was a must was because we desired vengence for Pearl Harbor and a very deadly conflict in the pacific.

I do not see the matter as simply as Bobzills. But I have a father who lost a leg and read his cousin’s name off the USS Arizona memorial. And I myself saw two incredibly bloody years in Vietnam. I understand the emotions that drive people in war. But I also know that Bobzills touches a truth in our faith, there is virtually always an opporunity to turn away from hate. To trust in God instead of the myth of redemptive violence.

And yes, you are most assuredly demonizing. It is understandable, it is a myth we created as a nation. Did we intern Italian Americans, or German Americans? Even after some turned out to be real spies and sympathizers? Look at the myth of ‘shock and awe’, WW-II style. We know from records and eye witnesses, that the bombs strengthened hardliner resolve, and made the peace movement in Japan fearful for its lives.

This is the same stupid myth that drives our foray into state sponsored torture today. Somehow, we see our ‘enemy’ as less than human, inherently inferior to ourselves. They will crack out of gutless self preservation. Sure, torture is proven fruitless in the past, but that is against people of faith, courage, and conviction…

 

[Elric]

Forgive me, I have the benefit of multiple eye witness accounts, and, as noted, considerable study on the matter.

You are not the only one.

No one is saying that Japan was not acting horribly - I spent many hours with a Mitsubishi plant survivor, hearing the experience in his words.

Plenty of people under state their actions, but that is really beside the point.

They were not brought up for a tit for tat argument about “which side was worse” (although the nature of the argument could make it look that way), they were brought up as a “both sides did bad” argument.

But Bobzills is right, we have to be carefully in rationalizing horrific acts ourselfs. Remember, WE had a massive eugenics movement here in the US and wrote the model for Germany’s ethnic purity law.

Just for the record, I am not from the United States (I kind of hinted at that before).

Further, we were just one generation removed from our own horrific eugenics campaign against Native Americans. And, of course, just two generations removed from our own geographic conquest and expansion and slavery.

They really is are issues for a seperate topic. They certainly are a significant part of US history, they are just not relevent to the issue of the atomic bomb.

You keep asking, ‘what other choice?’, how about containment and isolation?

Funny you should mention that, if you go back through history Japan wanted to be isolated from the rest of the world. It was actually the United States that forced them out of their isolation against Japans wishes.

Japan has virtually no natural resources. It has to have access to raw materials from beyond its borders to support a war machine. The only reason that a ‘deadly invasion’ was a must was because we desired vengence for Pearl Harbor and a very deadly conflict in the pacific.

Well you dont want to hear my opinion about Pearl Harbor, but there was a little more to it that simply vengance (although I am not discounting vengance as a motive).

The lack of raw materials would have slowed down their war machine, but it wouldnt stop it. Isolating them would take more resources, more lives and prolonged the war, something that nobody wanted and few could afford.

I do not see the matter as simply as Bobzills. But I have a father who lost a leg and read his cousin’s name off the USS Arizona memorial. And I myself saw two incredibly bloody years in Vietnam. I understand the emotions that drive people in war. But I also know that Bobzills touches a truth in our faith, there is virtually always an opporunity to turn away from hate. To trust in God instead of the myth of redemptive violence.

You have my sympathies for your father and his cousin, as well as my thanks for what they did. I am truely sorry that you had to fight in such a conflict as Vietnam was and for the treatment that you recieved when you came back (a friend of my dads still cant get a war veterans loan even though he served in Vietnam).

And yes, you are most assuredly demonizing. It is understandable, it is a myth we created as a nation. Did we intern Italian Americans, or German Americans? Even after some turned out to be real spies and sympathizers? Look at the myth of ‘shock and awe’, WW-II style. We know from records and eye witnesses, that the bombs strengthened hardliner resolve, and made the peace movement in Japan fearful for its lives.

Look I never said that the allies had their own wrongs that were committed and I am not demonizing any one.

This is the same stupid myth that drives our foray into state sponsored torture today. Somehow, we see our ‘enemy’ as less than human, inherently inferior to ourselves. They will crack out of gutless self preservation. Sure, torture is proven fruitless in the past, but that is against people of faith, courage, and conviction…

Well actually I am against tourture and all forms of inhumane treatment and wrongful detainment.

 

[bobzills]

Well actually I am against tourture and all forms of inhumane treatment and wrongful detainment.

You are against torture.
But are you in favor of murdering children by A-Bombs?

 

[Elric]

You are against torture.
But are you in favor of murdering children by A-Bombs?

Mate that is quite an offensive accusation, not only that it is completly unjustified.

Perhaps you should show where I stated that I was in favor of what you are accusing me of.

I think an appology is in order, but I really doubt that one will be comming.

 

[bobzills]

Mate that is quite an offensive accusation, not only that it is completly unjustified.

Perhaps you should show where I stated that I was in favor of what you are accusing me of.

I think an appology is in order, but I really doubt that one will be comming.

The comment was not directed to you personally. Only to those who are opposed to torture, but in favor of using the A-Bomb against children in Japan.
If there was an implication that you were in favor of anything like this, and you have indicated here that you are not, then I certainly do offer an apology.
Again, I did not mean this comment to be extended to you personally. I mean the comment to be made in a general sense to those for whom torture would be wrong in all circumstances, but who claim that there are some circumstances when it is OK to murder children by the use of the A-Bomb. As you know, i am strongly opposed to the use of the A-Bomb as I beleive that civilian casualties are unavoidable and you are going to end up killing innocent children who have nothing to do with the war situation.
Personally, i believe it is right to adhere to the principles:
Thou shalt not kill.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
This can be done by making use of peaceful diplomacy with an end in view of avoiding civilian casualties and of promoting peace and harmony in the world.