walking fiend
Member
I didn't say I don't care [I am Iranian]; but that the Islamic regime will lead more Iranians to death and misery if not stopped; much more than 80,000; but Nuking a city like Tehran with 10m people living in will not end well
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anaylsis: Attack on Iranian nuclear sites could kill tens of thousands of civilians
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
We know both posts were jokes in this context, so there's no fundamental difference.
Well I just think that when you destroy every form of infrastructure that Iran has, you're quickly going to have a famine on your hands that would probably also cost more than 80,000 lives
That's not an alternative, that's the current state of affairs as no attack has happened yet (recently). I have to ask though; how does maintaining the status quo prevent Iran from obtaining nukes if it hasn't deterred them thusfar? The Iranian government clearly doesn't care about Iranian people, the ultimate victims of aggressive sanctions (which is a little ironic given how concerned Iran is about Israel in general... they have MUCH bigger national issues than Israel and nuclear weapons to worry about IMO). Furthermore, what happens if the current plan fails and Iran does obtain nukes? What about the resulting political destabilization and nuclear arms race in the Middle East?
I'm not saying an attack is necessary but once again, you haven't really spoken to the points Prost brought up. His post clearly outlines the repercussions of maintaining the status quo and nothing you've said addresses the potentially very real consequences of dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Let's be real here. Iran getting nukes means NO ONE fucks with them. Not even the US. Considering how batshit insane NK was/is and we haven't fucked with them, should tell you a lot.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
There's no real precedent for any of the things you're saying. Nuclear deterrence apparently works, and obviously the only reason Iran wants a nuclear weapon is because Israel has them. If you took the nukes away from Israel, you would probably get Iran to give up enriching their own uranium.
In addition, you're suggesting killing thousands of civilians for a country doing nuclear research that does not violate international laws. From a purely selfish standpoint, I don't see why the US would consider that since Iran isn't going to have any way to deliver it to the US.
And yet, according to most on this board, continued diplomacy with such a regime is the only answer. Hmm....
btw I don't think anyone is pushing for the "nuking of a city like Tehran", but that's what happens when a government so interested in the well-being of their own citizens places nuclear facilities in close proximity to populated civilian areas.
The solution to dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran is to find a way to make peace with Iran before it becomes nuclear-armed. That's the only viable solution, because, again, we can't prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons without occupation, and occupation is straight-up not viable.
Yes, the consequence of maintaining the status quo is that we will not achieve detente before they get nukes. But attacking them without occupying them GUARANTEES that we will not achieve detente before they get nukes, because it will turn otherwise peaceful and even rebellious Iranians into supporters of the fascist order. So it's not that my post doesn't respond to the situation -- it's that his doesn't. How is making sure Iran hates us with a fiery passion going to make the Middle East safer for Israel?
A quick note from Juan Cole on Iran's nuclear program:
cole said:
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/its...y-netanyahu-really-wants-to-destroy-iran.html
We have time.
Isn't this the same argument for invading Iraq?
So in your view of things... Israel should give up it's nukes because one might "probably get Iran to give up enriching" afterwards? Then after this, Iran will also magically stop caring about the Israel/Palestine conflict?? And on top of this, you're telling me the ONLY reason Iran is trying to get nukes is because Israel has them???
Let's just say that I disagree strongly with your post.
captainnapalm
Member
Yep, and people are buying it again, hook, line and sinker. Because they are stupid.
walking fiend
Member
Yes, of course; I don't advocate that strategy, that'll probably lead to situation like Afghanistan where Taliban was in power, a total disaster ; I advocate occupation option
Now what you talking about? That's really not what happens, and definitely not what which should happen.
I don't think he's advocating that, he's just observing that Iran has genuine national security reasons for wanting to have nukes. Israel isn't exactly known for, you know, not attacking everybody else.
I'm also a little impressed by the fact that you completely ignore any possibility that there will actually be some advancement on the Palestinian front, despite that, again, being the best possible route to safety for Israel.
It's just not possible. Occupying Iraq was a disaster. Occupying Afghanistan was worse. But Iran isn't like Iraq or Afghanistan; it's more like France. The last time somebody tried to occupy France it didn't go super well for, well, anybody in the world. You are literally advocating for a third World War.
You think the real reason was to find Hussein's alleged stash? You think anyone CARED about finding it?
shinobi602
Member
Really? Now that's their fault? Lmao
Since you've acknowledged the consequences of what you've proposed, I have no further disagreements. We've butted heads about this before and it looks like the only thing we actually disagree about is the potential effect of continued diplomacy with Iran, which you are obviously more optimistic about than I am. Since neither of us can tell the future, I'm happy leaving things there... This is probably one of those things we won't change each others minds on.
With that being said and with me accepting the near fact that we have more time than Bibi would have anyone assume, time only moves forward (at least in our current physical paradigm). At what point does Iran actually cross the "red line" that everyone ripped apart Netanyahu for bringing up?
That was a typo. I meant to say that we might not achieve detente. But I generally agree with you about, uh, how we disagree.
Cole notes that nobody under UN inspection has ever developed a nuclear weapon, and that it would probably be impossible to secretly build enrichment plants, so I am willing, at least for now, to trust the observers, who are at least as invested as any of us in making sure that Iran doesn't secretly get nukes while we're not paying attention. If you don't trust them, then it's a much more difficult question. Probably if you start seeing enriched uranium over 20%, it's worth thinking hard about military solutions (though, again, I don't believe there are any).
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Yeah, I really don't know how it would be hard to see that Iran wants nukes as insurance against Israel.
And I assume the leaders in the US and Israel are smart enough not to give up the nukes and sit on their thumbs and just hope that Iran will scale back it's program. That's not how a negotiation works.
I don't think Iran really cares about Palestine other than the destabilizing effect it has on Israel.
I mean, which one is it? Is Israel/Palestine an Iranian issue or is it an Islamic issue or is it both? Is the plight of the Palestinians actually tied to Iran's nuclear aspirations? Many would say yes, others would say no. To me, it isn't very clear at all. One of the labs I've worked in had a post-doc from Iran, and he said that the only time Iran ramps up it's anti-Israel rhetoric (with respect to Palestine and not national security) is when other national issues need to be buried the most.
I also try to ignore the Israel/Palestine front because it's a little tough to reconcile the whole "two-state solution" you advocate with Iran's current stance on Israel/Zionism.
This is much better. I agree, but I can see many reasons aside from Israel that Iran would want the bomb. Increased traction with the US/Western world being the main one.
btw I'm sorry for being a dick with my previous post.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Iran uses proxy groups to hurt Israel, but they want the nukes to defend their own country. I don't think Iran would ever use a nuke to defend Palestine.
So...going to address the fact that your argument for invading Iran is the same as the argument for invading Iraq?
I wasn't going to because I thought it was obvious, but if I must, here it goes.
Maybe it's the fact that Iran actually has working nuclear reactors, is currently investing in uranium enrichment and is experiencing a boom in the field of nuclear physics (especially with regards to the number of papers published by Iranian scientists). There is also worse relations between Israel (a nuclear superpower) and Iran than compared to Iraq, providing more justification for Iran to "buck up" as it were.
If you were actually interested in reading my posts, you'd see I'm not directly in favour of an attack or war (this is the second topic pigeon and I have sorta gone toe-to-toe on). I just don't have as much faith as others in the diplomatic process when it comes to Islamic countries in the ME, and would much rather deal (militarily) with a non-nuclear armed Iran now, than a nuclear-armed Iran later.
This. If I was within striking distance of Israel I would see two options.
1. Give up any/all power/policy to the us to avoid them/israel destroying my country/citizens.
2. Get a big enough deterrent like a nuke to be able to tell them to fuck off.
We all learned a listen here. If you ever wanna make a joke post, don't go full troll.
speculawyer
Member
Just strike a grand bargain with inspections and be rid of this stupid issue.
phosphor112
Banned
Don't you know, it's the first time ANY country has built a power plant near a city!
The hoops people jump through....
- Status