Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since we’re discussing hypotheticals: what two things would you like to ask each candidate, with the ability to taser them if they don’t actually answer the question?

Obama:
1) A high ranking traitor pops up from Iran. The traitor says Iran will be nuclear in 30 days. They will have a fusion bomb capable of being put on their ballistic missile. The missile can reach Europe, all of the ME, and much of northern Africa.

2) Who would be your first choice for secretaries of Defense, Commerce, State, Homeland Security, and the Interior.


McCain:
1) Are you going to do anything about the US border situation?

2) Who would be your first choice for secretaries of Defense, Commerce, State, Homeland Security, and the Interior.

McCain/Obama:

1) Do you really believe that nonsense about putting more troops in Afghanistan?
2) Do you really think Iran is a credible threat to the US?
3) Do you really think Russia is in any way comparable to the USSR?

McCain:

1) Do you think the US can function as a Cold War style superpower?
2) Why Palin?

Obama:

1) Who would your SecDef be?
2) Given that outsourcing is unavoidable: How will you create unique job markets in the US to prevent a major economic regression? How will you sustain that process of job creation?

dogma wrote:2) Given that outsourcing is unavoidable: How will you create unique job markets in the US to prevent a major economic regression? How will you sustain that process of job creation?

I think he's answered this with his green infrastructure program and advanced manufacturing Fund.

Obama:

How long will you maintain the tax cuts if the economy starts to expand?
Why isn't rate analysis a bigger part of your healthcare plan? (I don't think shifting records to digital is going to save 'that' much money)

dogma wrote:McCain/Obama:

1) Do you really believe that nonsense about putting more troops in Afghanistan?
2) Do you really think Iran is a credible threat to the US?
3) Do you really think Russia is in any way comparable to the USSR?

McCain:

1) Do you think the US can function as a Cold War style superpower?
2) Why Palin?

Obama:

1) Who would your SecDef be?
2) Given that outsourcing is unavoidable: How will you create unique job markets in the US to prevent a major economic regression? How will you sustain that process of job creation?

The only reason the U.S. cares at all about Iran is because they have oil and they might be a threat to precious little Israel.

More importantly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Egypt, and the UAE. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have already expressed strong interest in developing "nuclear power" should Iran get the Bomb.


Plus that whole, give one to terrorists to go kill the Great Satan fear we have...

Nuclear proliferation is inevitable. We have an interest in delaying it in order to prevent it from being a destabilizing influence, but to pretend that we can keep the bomb from Iran is foolish.

Either way, there are two major reasons that make the fear of Iranian backed terrorist nukes irrational.
1) No rational state wants to see its power undermined by privately held nuclear weapons. And, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, Iran has a fairly extensive history of rational behavior.
2) The danger of privately owned nukes comes primarily from unstable regimes. The Iranian regime is anything but unstable. And, even if it were, the solution isn't to further destabilize the government through foolishly aggressive rhetoric.

You're saying rhetoric I am not. Thats the argument. To say nuclear proliferation is inevitable is a presumption akin to saying no matter what, the terrorists will eventually nuke the East Coast. To have a proliferation of nukes in an unstable region prone to having shooting wars and prone to supoprting terroism is not a good thing. Remember Iran is supporting both the Shiites and Al Qaeda in Iraq-anyone who wants a rocket to help destabilize, and is actively supporting both Hamas and Hezbullah in launching daily rocket attacks

Frazzled wrote:You're saying rhetoric I am not. Thats the argument. To say nuclear proliferation is inevitable is a presumption akin to saying no matter what, the terrorists will eventually nuke the East Coast. To have a proliferation of nukes in an unstable region prone to having shooting wars and prone to supoprting terroism is not a good thing. Remember Iran is supporting both the Shiites and Al Qaeda in Iraq-anyone who wants a rocket to help destabilize, and is actively supporting both Hamas and Hezbullah in launching daily rocket attacks

That isn't rhetoric. It's rational reflection. All you need to develop nuclear weapons is a confluence resources and information. Hell, Iran already has plenty of fissile material within their borders, and that's really the only way to restrict warhead manufacture. What is rhetoric is your presumption that Iran is somehow less rational than any other state; it simply does not line up with their past behavior or current political position.

In any case, to assume that the Iranians would give nukes to terrorists would require one to assume that the United States was likely to do the same with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Simply put, it is never in the state's interest to put itself on equal footing with non-state actors, and the Iranians know this.

By "proliferation" I believe he meant the process of more countries acquiring nukes. Which is indeed inevitable.

Now, since pretty much no one who runs a country would want terrorists to have nukes (even terrorists they support), the extension of that concept to terrorists nuking us is pretty tenuous.

Iran is also significantly more complex than just their nutjob president and the people there who are supporting the insurgents. While their religious extremist government is not our friend, their overall young and tech-savvy population is very likely to become so in the future if we don’t do something crazy like dropping bombs on them.

Not to mention the fact that their extremist government is far less extreme than common wisdom would have you believe. Especially in matters of foreign policy.

Frazzled wrote:
Obama:
1) A high ranking traitor pops up from Iran. The traitor says Iran will be nuclear in 30 days. They will have a fusion bomb capable of being put on their ballistic missile. The missile can reach Europe, all of the ME, and much of northern Africa.

We do nothing. They will not use the weapon, and if they do then we are more than capable of delivering a crushing response. Indeed, Iranian nuclear capability should only increase our efforts towards stabilizing the Iranian regime through effective communication. In this instance we should build their legitimacy, regardless of any 'moral' quandaries.

Edit: I wanted to respond to this, so I'm quoting it over from the other thread.

Frazzled wrote:And the Supreme Leader is not lying at all...

Why are they bulding nukes? Why are they destabilizing Gaza/Lebanon killing Israelis daily, destabilizing iraq and killing coalition troops. I'll assume they're rational so what? Stalin and Hitler were rational and they both killed a godawful lot of people.

But again, thats a different thread. Go to the other thread and answer what you would do. That would be an interesting discussion. Its unnerving when you really think about it.

They're building nukes to cement their position as a regional hegemon. It is a matter of pride and deterrence, not use. In any case, I truly doubt the Supreme Leader is lying; it wouldn't be consistent with the rational policy towards centrism he has exhibited during his reign. Nor would it jive with the doctrine of detente manipulation exhibited by the support of proxy combatants. Irrational leaders march to war regardless of the costs, Iran has exhibited no tendency towards this.

dogma wrote:Not to mention the fact that their extremist government is far less extreme than common wisdom would have you believe. Especially in matters of foreign policy.

I'd hate to see what you view as extreme.

But answer the Obama question. Its the proverbial two minutes to midnight. The Iranians get the bomb in 30 days. What do you El Presidente do?

Build their legitimacy? Er ok.

What if they nuke Israel?
What if they threaten Iraq? (Hussein's reason for keeping the lack of nukes secret was to bluster the Iranians).
What if they shut down the gulf of Hormuz and say if we do a thing the nuke Saudi Arabia/Kuwait?
What if you're wrong and they give a nuke to a terrorist? The terrorist wipes out NY. Are you going to take the chance millions of Americans will die?

Edit to be fair, here are my answers.
1. Do nothing.
2. In the near term, publicly state the US would consider that an act of war
3. Sink their navy, destroy their air force. Obliterate their refineries. Then see if they'll talk...with no preconditions
4. If they develop a nuke publicly state any WMD attack on the US will be considered an attack from Iran and will be responded to with overwhelming nuclear destruction (MADD shifted from Russians to Iranians, afetr all they are rational actors).

Why would they nuke Israel?
That would be economic suicide and they are far from self sufficient.
It would be an action that would cause them to lose power in the region and paint them as the target for everyone in the middle east that was hate'n on Israel.
They would also lose support from anyone that support an independent Palestine.
also, environmentally, the wind blows eastward so it better be a clean bomb.

It would be far better for them to have strength that is perceived, rather than enforced.

What would be a good (in their perspective) reason to nuke Israel?

Frazzled wrote:Build their legitimacy? Er ok.

A legitimate state is one that has no fear for its existence. A state which has no fear for its existence is one which acts rationally towards a conservative end.

Frazzled wrote:
What if they nuke Israel?

We (or the Israeli's) return the favor, matter settled.

Frazzled wrote:
What if they threaten Iraq? (Hussein's reason for keeping the lack of nukes secret was to bluster the Iranians).

They can't threaten Iraq. Their military is numerous but primarily built around guerrilla combat. They cannot take and hold territory. If they try to do so, our armed forces would obliterate theirs.

Frazzled wrote:
What if they shut down the gulf og Hormuz and say if we do a thing the nuke Saudi Arabia/Kuwait?

They could do that, but they need the oil money as badly as anyone else. Driving up prices just drives people to alternative fuel that much faster. Not to mention the relative ease with which the US could seize/destroy the small number of viable ports on the Iranian coast.

Frazzled wrote:
What if you're wrong and they give a nuke to a terrorist? The terrorist wipes out NY. Are you going to take the chance millions of Americans will die?

Yes, absolutely. New York isn't even the ideal target for a limited nuclear blast. The robust structure of the skyline would contain the blast to around 15 blocks, and the prevailing winds would carry the fallout towards the Atlantic. A much better target would be s city like Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. More damage from the blast, more poison from the fallout, and a larger cultural effect thanks to the bias towards middle America. We would suffer a blow, and a harsh one at that, but they would lose control of their state in the resulting response. Which would almost certainly generate major sympathy throughout the developed world. Especially if it were a terrorist strike.

I have to agree with dogma and Manny here. We talk to them. In the meantime, MAD held the Soviets in check and I fail to see why it wouldn't work with Iran. I don't think the Iranian government or religious poobahs want to see every last Persian man, woman and child vaporized. One or a handful of nukes makes Iran dangerous, but it doesn't mean they can negotiate with US from a superior position.

Segueing into the terrorist hypothetical, would Iran really be willing to give terrorists the bomb if there was any chance the trail could lead back to them and cause the aforementioned vaporization? Personally I think the chance of chemical or bioweapon attack on American cities to be much higher.

Looking at the situation practically, nuke technology is 60 years old. Even African nations are going to have them eventually. We can't just attack everyone that's nuke-capable, or we'll have an endless eternity of carnage and slaughter and the laughter of...you get the picture.

Why are they attacking Israel now? Its not rational but it occurs every day.
But thats the trick. Will they keep this nuke to themselves? Will they threaten other nations? Will they go nuts?

gorgon wrote:I have to agree with dogma and Manny here. We talk to them. In the meantime, MAD held the Soviets in check and I fail to see why it wouldn't work with Iran. I don't think the Iranian government or religious poobahs want to see every last Persian man, woman and child vaporized. One or a handful of nukes makes Iran dangerous, but it doesn't mean they can negotiate with US from a superior position.

Segueing into the terrorist hypothetical, would Iran really be willing to give terrorists the bomb if there was any chance the trail could lead back to them and cause the aforementioned vaporization? Personally I think the chance of chemical or bioweapon attack on American cities to be much higher.

Looking at the situation practically, nuke technology is 60 years old. Even African nations are going to have them eventually. We can't just attack everyone that's nuke-capable, or we'll have an endless eternity of carnage and slaughter and the laughter of...you get the picture.

And thats the argument, but both Obama and McCain have now stated as policy that Iran connt be allowed to have nuclear weapons. So what do they do when the or get off the pot moment comes?

They can't threaten Iraq. Their military is numerous but primarily built around guerrilla combat. They cannot take and hold territory. If they try to do so, our armed forces would obliterate theirs.

So your saying Dogma we should keep troops there? How does that square with Obama's, and your desire to pull them out? They are either there or they aren't. After all we have other theatres to deal with.

Frazzled wrote:Why are they attacking Israel now? Its not rational but it occurs every day.
But thats the trick. Will they keep this nuke to themselves? Will they threaten other nations? Will they go nuts?

Actually it is highly rational for them to harass Israel for a number of reasons.

1) It allows them to present an anti-Imperialist policy.
2) It prevents Israel from reaching a negotiated solution which would allow them to challenge Iranian authority as regional hegemon.
3) It curries favor throughout the Arab world, of which Iran is not a distinct part.
4) It keeps the current establishment in power much in the same way that Bush was able to hold onto the Presidency by convincing the more conservative elements of society that the barbarians are at the gates.

Frazzled:

Will they keep this nuke to themselves? Will they threaten other nations? Will they go nuts?

With all this power. What if we go nuts? What if we just start invading nations that did not start a conflict with us?
Should nations that disagree with our actions be able to retaliate in a meaningful way after we kill their brutalize and citizens?

Frazzled wrote:

And thats the argument, but both Obama and McCain have now stated as policy that Iran connt be allowed to have nuclear weapons. So what do they do when the or get off the pot moment comes?

They pretty much had to take that position. Iran has become such an all-consuming bogeyman that it would be very difficult to sway public opinion in the course of the campaign.

Belphegor wrote:Frazzled:

Will they keep this nuke to themselves? Will they threaten other nations? Will they go nuts?

With all this power. What if we go nuts? What if we just start invading nations that did not start a conflict with us?
Should nations that disagree with our actions be able to retaliate in a meaningful way after we kill their brutalize and citizens?

Thats why countries have militiaries, to insure they are not the ones being brutalized.


Dogma-you're right, but its stated policy now, and a particular lynchpin for Obama's presidency. He can't go back on that. The boys must come home (and rightfully). I was actually assuming the troops have been drawn down at that time.

Frazzled wrote:
So your saying Dogma we should keep troops there? How does that square with Obama's, and your desire to pull them out? They are either there or they aren't. After all we have other theatres to deal with.

Not at all. We don't need to keep troops there. That's the beauty of the nuclear carrier. We have on demand air-power wherever we want it. If they invade Iraq we have all the excuse we need to smash every single piece of their military establishment, and the capability to do it without ever putting boots on the ground.

Remember, we don't need to hold territory. The dissident factions in Northern and Southern Iraq can handle that once the Iranian combat platforms are ash.

At the risk of derailing the thread, morally speaking the Iranians have a complete right to develop nuclear weapons. They have borders with three nuclear states -- Russian, India and Pakistan (two of whom are proliferators) and are within easy missile reach of two more-- China, and Israel (which is another proliferator.)

Ask yourself, if the USA was not already a nuclear state and Canada, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Brazil were, if the USA would not feel a need for nuclear weapons.

This is a very undesireable situation but the way of defusing it is not to bomb Iran.

Kilkrazy wrote:At the risk of derailing the thread, morally speaking the Iranians have a complete right to develop nuclear weapons.

A right you say? From whence is yon right bestowed?

Kilkrazy wrote:They have borders with three nuclear states -- Russian, India and Pakistan

What kind of screwed up maps are you looking at? They share a border with Pakistan and that is it. Canada doesn't seem to be chomping at the bit to get a Nuclear bomb and they are next door. Of course Canada isn't calling Greenland a corpse and threatening to drive them off the island.

The right of self-defence.

Ahtman wrote:
What kind of screwed up maps are you looking at? They share a border with Pakistan and that is it. Canada doesn't seem to be chomping at the bit to get a Nuclear bomb and they are next door. Of course Canada isn't calling Greenland a corpse and threatening to drive them off the island.

Maybe they should. Freakin' slackers.

So hows Israel's nuke program going?

They don't, to my knowledge, have nuclear production capability and aren't publicly nuclear. Though its pretty well accepted that they have a significant arsenal at their disposal. However, estimates vary widely, I've seen quotes anywhere between 30 and 300 warheads. Mostly of French origin.

Ahtman wrote:

A right you say? From whence is yon right bestowed?

One would presume self-determination. There's also the matter of access to nuclear energy technology provided by membership in the IAEA. An organization chartered, in part, by the United States.