RyushiBlade on 12/2/2006 at 02:03
I was going to post this in the cartoon thread, but I began ranting about the nuclear issue, so here it is. First, I warn you all that I am not schooled in diplomatics, nor am I skilled in foreign affairs. I "calls 'em as I sees 'em."
Also, I saw the other thread on Iranian nuclear research, but it had moved beyond this into the purely nuclear type of talk. I hope mine is a bit different.
Iran initially stated that its nuclear programs were intended for nuclear powerplants - this may have been true. At first I wondered why, if the U.N. was so concerned, we didn't offer to enrich, distribute, and maintain the nuclear power plants ourselves. More money for us, yes, but it would resolve this issue. I don't think Iran would have gone for it though. Refusing a crutch that is the western world seems to be their game.
Then Iran says:
Quote:
"The nuclear policy of the Islamic Republic so far has been peaceful. Until now, we have worked inside the agency (International Atomic Energy Agency) and the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) regulations," he said.
"If we see you want to violate the right of the Iranian people by using those regulations (against us), you should know that the Iranian people will revise its policies. You should do nothing that will lead to such a revision in our policy."
To me, this says, "Since you've made such a big deal out of this, we're
going to make nuclear warheads. Unless you stop. Incidentally, western laws do not apply to us. If we want to attack civilians, we will. If we want to use chemical warfare, we will."
Iran is blatantly refusing to oblige by 'western' international laws. Geneva means nothing to them. They have even said that the Holocaust
never happened. If we go to war with Iran, they'll be playing dirty.
Now, here's my quesiton. Who is allied with Iran? It seems absurd. I have looked up various statistics about Iran and more 'western' countries:
Iran: Population (60 million) | GDP $516 billion
U.K.: Population (60 million) | GDP $1 trillion
France: Population (60 million) | GDP $1 trillion
Germany: Population (80 million) | GDP $2 trillion
Russia: Population (143 million) | GDP $1 trillion
United States: Population
(295 million) | GDP
$11 trillionJust a few countries there. I realize population and GDP don't really prove much in the way of military power, but any fool can see that Iran is outnumbered, outgunned, and outpriced. If it came to an all out war, Iran would fall in less than a year.
Is Iran really this stupid?They don't even have atomic bombs yet. If they even manage to get one out, and drop it, that would give reason for the other U.N. countries to drop nuclear weapons on the country.
It just seems idiotic for Iran to be fighting against the U.N. If war is declared on Iran, however, it would be a historic event. The U.N. would prove itself capable of enforcing its laws.
SD on 12/2/2006 at 02:14
Quote Posted by RyushiBlade
Refusing a crutch that is the western world seems to be their game.
That does seem a perfectly reasonable game though. I mean, if Iran's leaders oppose everything that the West stands for, then it's only right that they should want to have as little to do with the West as possible (in fact I wish our own leaders would show the same sort of consistency, rather than condemning oppressive regimes but still selling them warheads and equipment).
Quote:
They have even said that the Holocaust
never happened.Whoa there. Iran's president has said this, not Iran (the landmass or the population). That might seem like nitpicking, but it's lazy generalisation to apply such obnoxious views to all of Iran's citizens.
Quote:
It just seems idiotic for Iran to be fighting against the U.N. If war is declared on Iran, however, it would be a historic event. The U.N. would prove itself capable of enforcing its laws.
How are we going to wage war on Iran when we're bogged down in Iraq, and will be for years to come?
Aerothorn on 12/2/2006 at 02:14
If it came to an all out war, I'd hope that everyone else did it because the US has overbudgeted the military enough as it is and can't afford another war.
Also:
Quote Posted by RyushiBlade
Iran is blatantly refusing to oblige by 'western' international laws. Geneva means nothing to them.
It's pretty hypocritical for us to diss Iran for that, don't you think?
aguywhoplaysthief on 12/2/2006 at 02:39
Damn Stronts, getting a little slow in your old age eh?
Friggin Aerothorn hit the Geneva button before you.
Far more interesting a discussion would be over how Western Russia should be considered in 2006.
Gingerbread Man on 12/2/2006 at 03:57
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
... the US has overbudgeted the military enough as it is and can't afford another war.
A vast chunk of that money (possibly most, I don't know) is for deploying and maintaining an army that far from home. I don't think a few hundred miles further east is going to break the bank, unfortunately.
(lol the bank's already broken $8,211,056,130,730.69 what)
Wyclef on 12/2/2006 at 04:05
I'm not so certain that an attack on Iran will succeed, for the following reasons:
1.) Shiites in Iraq. Except for a few Sadrist flare-ups, they've been pretty quiet because they realize they have the most to gain in the new Iraq. An attack on their coreligionists will quite likely ignite a major Shiite revolt in Iraq; Sistani will only have to give the word.
2.) I know the least concerning this point, and I suspect it's the weakest of the reasons, but the Iranian military is fairly modern, and not hollowed out like Saddam's forces were. I seem to recall Pentagon-conducted war simulations in which the admiral controlling the Iranian side sunk half of the US gulf fleet. While I don't think they can win or even achieve Iran/Iraq-style stalemate in set-piece ground battles, it won't be a cakewalk, either.
3.) War is just the sort of thing to unite the Iranians against us. The reformists (as weak as they have become) and the hardliners agree on the nuclear issue, and the former won't greet us with garlands of flowers and candy. The specter of Mossadeq and previous US meddling hangs over everything, as does the suicidal resolve of Iranian volunteers in the Iran-Iraq war.
The Pentagon is relatively sane, so I don't think an all-out Iranian attack will happen. Airstrikes are possible, though.
EDIT: 4.) Nevermind war, consider how much of a clusterfuck occupation would be. The neocons have shot their bolt; there won't be any major ground engagements for quite some time.
TheMuffinMan on 12/2/2006 at 05:04
The key here is that if any war is started by Iran, the option they will be pressing is chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. If they do that, other nations have a free hand to respond in kind (the US, for example, would respond to chemical or biological attacks with nuclear weaponry). It would be relatively cheap for any of the nuclear powers mentioned to turn every major population center in the country into parking lots. No troops or supply lines required.
Microwave Oven on 12/2/2006 at 06:14
Retaliation by such "evil" weapons would cast a very poor light on the US (and allies). We would hold a very good moral high ground if Iran used WMDs and we didn't sink to their level. We would be the Good Guys stopping an Evil Regime, for real this time. ++World relations.
RyushiBlade on 12/2/2006 at 06:34
TheMuffinMan was thinking more along my lines (though I'm sorry for the generalization, SD. I'm not entirely sure, but I doubt the level of education in Iran is extraordinarily high. They may, or may not, teach Iran citizens of the holocaust.)
But remember, chances are it won't be just the U.S. fighting Iran. Since Iran is refusing the U.N., most countries in it will be obligated to enforce the international laws. So either the U.N. would collapse as countries back out, or a LOT of military power will land right on Iran. It doesn't matter if Iran can sink half of our fleet - they'd be fighting our fleet, Britain's fleet, Germany's, Russia's, China's, France's... and so on. That's why I want to know what the hell Iran thinks it's doing.
If they start launching nukes, I have no doubt all nuclear-armed countries would (with permission from the U.N.) fire theirs. We'd definitely wait for them to act first, obviously. Once they do, we would launch ours just to stop them from dropping more nukes on us. From a military standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense to fight on a lower technology level than your advesary, no matter the 'morality' involved.
Renzatic on 12/2/2006 at 06:56
I agree with Microwave Oven (that feels so weird to say), there's absolutely no reason for us to use WMD's in a retaliation. A unified US/European counterattack would obliterate them within a few months time, and you wouldn't have the blood of a million innocents on your hands.
Ideogically Iran is in a strange flux at the moment. While their leadership is in hardcore KILLJEW mode, a small but vocal minority is willing to take a moderate and more westernized stance to their religion and goverment. Nuking the hell out of them would not only completely destroy this glimmer of hope, but would breed about a million more Bin Ladens in the process.
