Iran is almost about to reach nuclear capability

[Prometheus98876]

Maybe in the case of Israel vs Iran some of those wars among nations could apply (ony that Iran always uses proxy groups by now probably independent from their source)

But it certainly wont help, as you admitted, to curb terrorism or "post modern warfare". Both Pakistan and the UK would have to be destroyed to be saved.

No, I admitted it would not help as much to curb other sorts of terrorism. But that it would help eliminate state-sponsoered terrorism.

[Prometheus98876]

Iran has a proven history of fighting proxy wars. All other things being equal, if they have a nuclear sheild I am completely certain that they would step up those proxy wars. I think it is plausible that they would use a nuke if they had one, but I don't regard it as anything close to completely certain. Either way, plausible is certain enough to justify full-scale military action when the result in question is a nuclear firestorm directed at the US or its allies.

For sure : Something has to be done in any case. Even if they do not get nukes.

By some accounts, the US won the Vietnam war as a result of the Tet Offensive, which was a collosal failure. Only weak American resolve allowed the NVA to win. It is true that nobody has stopped Islamist terrorism by brutally waging a war to crush Islamist resolve. But the biggest reason for this is because nobody has tried, it isn't because the strategy lacks merit. In any case, Islamism has generations of infrastructure that must be dismantled. That means years of uncompromising action, the type of which we haven't yet seen, toward clearly defined enemies.

Of course, this was the point I was making. It can ( and should be done), but has not worked because nobody has done what I ( and the book I mentioned) say needs to be done.

[volco]

By some accounts, the US won the Vietnam war as a result of the Tet Offensive, which was a collosal failure. Only weak American resolve allowed the NVA to win.

what if America had won that war? Would we now be getting a better deal in our shoe making contracts? Would communism have been thwarted before it fell under its own weight?

It is true that nobody has stopped Islamist terrorism by brutally waging a war to crush Islamist resolve. But the biggest reason for this is because nobody has tried, it isn't because the strategy lacks merit. In any case, Islamism has generations of infrastructure that must be dismantled. That means years of uncompromising action, the type of which we haven't yet seen, toward clearly defined enemies.

But islamism also uses British and German infrastructure, should that be dismantled too? Maybe we haven't seen a 1940s uncompromising attack on "? " because the enemy, much unlike Japan and Germany, is NOT clearly defined. at all.

Iran might be the last state to so openly sponsor terrorism, but as pointed out by everyone they use proxies who could have obtained a nuke in a more secretive way than a years old publicized campaign - if they needed a nuke to inflict terror, which they don't.

[EC]

I was the one who was asking the question following question.

I see yours is no. And Eric is also no.

interesting.

Also interesting EC's absolute evasion of 1) my proposal that oil is finite and essential for at least a window of time, and a disproportionate part of it is in Iran, and Iran's neighbours.

Of course oil is an important and finite resource. I'm not evading that fact. Although, there is much more oil out there than in other parts of the world that is undeveloped as of now. We just can't include any nations potential resources when concluding whether or not they are a threat that needs to be eliminated.

2) I repeatedly acknowledged Iran's threat as a sponsor of terrorism.

But you don't acknowledge the threat should be eliminated?

- and therefore more complicated as Israel already has nuclear capability and has not preemptively struck Iran yet as it did with Iraq before. Israel seems more preoccupied with the distributed character of "post-modern" warfare (terrorism) which clearly can't be eradicated by occupying countries ad infinitum.

Who said anything about occupying countries? I've repeated that the appropriate response is a (at least limited) nuclear strike that doesn't put any of our troops in harms way and eliminates the threat. I might be exaggerating a bit with turning the whole middle east into a nuclear wasteland to make a point but that doesn't change the fact that at least a limited nuclear strike is the best way to eliminate the threat without putting any troops in danger.

[EC]

If only that worked. Do you actually have any evidence of any country resolving terrorism that way? Ireland, Spain, India, any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims, not that it would be moral (Peikoff already did that) but that it would actually work?

How can killing them all and eliminating or destroying all their infrastructure and/or support not "work'? They come back as ghosts to haunt us? lol

[EC]

The attacks on America back in 2001 were, as far as we can know, carried out using Saudi sponsorhip, some Sudanese, Pakistani, I believe some other countries, and actually German infrastructure. That's a lot of turf to cover.

If that's true, then it's another argument for the use of nuclear weapons to end the threat.

[EC]

I never said warfare of any sort "curbs terrorism". However I did say that waging war against *state-sponsored* terrorism would if done properly, be an effective way to eventually stop this happening. Obviously terrorism is not completely stopped, but at least states would not be knowingly funding it anymore.

This.

[volco]

How can killing them all and eliminating or destroying all their infrastructure and/or support not "work'? They come back as ghosts to haunt us? lol

wow, and you even laugh about it.

This has been an interest exchange of ideas, after vomiting I'll follow the rest of the "debate" silently.

[mdegges]

I might be exaggerating a bit with turning the whole middle east into a nuclear wasteland to make a point but that doesn't change the fact that at least a limited nuclear strike is the best way to eliminate the threat without putting any troops in danger.

That's a horrible thought, and very unrealistic. The US would never nuke the entire middle east.. I'd be really surprised if they used nukes at all (at least in the near future).. and definitely not as a "preventative measure." Remember Hiroshima, and all that negative press? It never went away; it's still being propagated in schools that nuclear warfare is bad, and that the US should not have used them. After all, it's human lives we're talking about.. not just soldiers with guns & political leaders.

For the US to actually consider nukes, they would need a lot of evidence that Iran 1) is actually creating nuclear weapons, and 2) planning to use them on the US. As for #1, I'm not sure the US should act as a babysitter to other countries and prevent them from arming themselves with weapons that many other countries already have.. unless there is hard evidence that the country in question would use them to attack another country (namely, the US). As for #2, convincing Congress that nukes are really necessary seems like a slim-to-none chance.

[EC]

Maybe we haven't seen a 1940s uncompromising attack on "? " because the enemy, much unlike Japan and Germany, is NOT clearly defined. at all.

The enemy is militant state sponsored Islam and it's proxies.

Iran might be the last state to so openly sponsor terrorism, but as pointed out by everyone they use proxies who could have obtained a nuke in a more secretive way than a years old publicized campaign - if they needed a nuke to inflict terror, which they don't.

True they don't need one to "inflict terror" but it's completely arbitrary to state that any nation that engages in inflicting terror won't use the most powerful weapon in the history of mankind while doing so if it possesses one. "Inflicting terror" either outright itself or through proxies means that they are consistently the aggressor, and this conflicts with your conjecture that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons just for the sake of discouraging attacks from peaceful nations who have no reason to attack them except to prevent attacks from Iran or it's proxies.

[EC]

wow, and you even laugh about it.

This has been an interest exchange of ideas, after vomiting I'll follow the rest of the "debate" silently.

I was laughing at the second part which is a joke. There is no way if all the terrorists are killed, and it's sponsorship and infrastructure is destroyed that we can not win the war of state sponsored militant Islam. In other words, it will work.

My guess is the problem you have with this is that "innocent" people will die in the process. Yes, innocent people will die. But who's hands is the blood on, morally, in this case?

[EC]

That's a horrible thought, and very unrealistic. The US would never nuke the entire middle east..[ I'd be really surprised if they used nukes at all (at least in the near future).. and definitely not as a "preventative measure." Remember Hiroshima, and all that negative press? It never went away; it's still being propagated in schools that nuclear warfare is bad, and that the US should not have used them. After all, it's human lives we're talking about.. not just soldiers with guns & political leaders.

Propagated by who? The left. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war swiftly and saved countless human lives. The deaths of any innocent civilians who die in any just war is morally in the hands of the aggressor nation, not on the hands of the nation who is eliminating that threat.

[mdegges]

Propagated by who? The left. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war swiftly and saved countless human lives. The deaths of any innocent civilians who die in any just war is morally in the hands of the aggressor nation, not on the hands of the nation who is eliminating that threat.

The use of nuclear bombs isn't just in any realistic situation (when the only people that need to be taken out are the ones in charge).

Killing thousands of innocent people isn't okay, and if you drop the bomb, their blood is on your hands -- not on the leaders of the country whose civilians in question may or may not agree with.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Michele Degges

[FeatherFall]

Volco, I'm sorry you left so soon. I still don't understand what your point is. You've said Iran is a threat (with or without nukes), but you seem to oppose the notion of fighting them. You seem to think terrorism is unstoppable, and you've alluded to the contradictory notion that enemies will defeat themselves (presumably, again, we shouldn't fight them). If you choose to re-enter the thread I'd like to know what course of action you would have us take, based on these scattered premises.

what if America had won that war?

I'm not interested in speculating what would have happened, and it isn't really relevant (if you think it is, I'm willing to consider why you believe it). My purpose in mentioning veitnam was, using your chosen example, to counter your implied point that conventional war is innefectual. The factors that are relevant to both the Vietnam war and our current war with the Islamists are resolve and clarity. The NVA had them, the Islamists have them, and the West has lacked them since after the days of Churchill. Your own position is a case in point.

But islamism also uses British and German infrastructure, should that be dismantled too? Maybe we haven't seen a 1940s uncompromising attack on "? " because the enemy, much unlike Japan and Germany, is NOT clearly defined. at all.

Our enemies will be defined by an active process of identification. Once clarity is brought to the issue and those enemies are called out, pressure can be put on our allies to dismantle any Islamist networks within their own spheres of influence.

Edited November 9, 2011 by FeatherFall
typos and grammar

[EC]

The use of nuclear bombs isn't just in any realistic situation (when the only people that need to be taken out are the ones in charge).

Killing thousands of innocent people isn't okay, and if you drop the bomb, their blood is on your hands -- not on the leaders of the country whose civilians in question may or may not agree with.

Not true. Also you need to define your definition of "innocent people" when the vast majority of those people accept, approve of, and support "the ones in charge" are the vast majority of these "innocents". Was a Nazi captain at Auschwitz or the intellectual elite who made this possible, or even the average Volk who freely elected the Nazi's to power in Nazi Germany truly "innocent" because they are not Hitler? If we had the capability to nuke Berlin prior to the invasion of Europe to end the war, stop the aggression, and save millions of lives in the process how would this not be the moral action? As to the true innocents that die, our action was in response to the actions of their government, and it is with their evil government that the moral blame for their death lies. Not with our just action to end the threat with minimal casualties on our side.

Edited November 10, 2011 by EC

[volco]

Volco, I'm sorry you left so soon. I still don't understand what your point is. You've said Iran is a threat (with or without nukes), but you seem to oppose the notion of fighting them. You seem to think terrorism is unstoppable, and you've alluded to the contradictory notion that enemies will defeat themselves (presumably, again, we shouldn't fight them). If you choose to re-enter the thread I'd like to know what course of action you would have us take, based on these scattered premises.

You made me come back, I was just digesting the nuclear wasteland thoughts. As new member Michele points out, killing civilians is not ok, it can be morally acceptable only in some circumstances; and it disturbs me to talk about it so lightly, even revel on it.

There are two things in play in what you ask me. Iran which is the topic of the thread is about to achieve nuclear capacity. We've known this for five years now and we've seen American and Israeli politicians do almost nothing about it. When Iraq was in the doubt of having WMD the reaction was much different, but in the case of Iran we know it in advance. I hope I'm right in my guess that they want a nuclear program for energy and deterrent purposes. I lament that part of those deterrent purposes might enable more terrorism.

I was pointing out also that Iran's proxies, namely Hezbollah, is almost independent now and that they could have, and still can, acquire either WMD or other weapons secretly, not donated from the highly publicized Irani program.

I do agree that once Iran has its nuclear shield their proxy's operations could escalate, but in the context of Islamic terrorism, or even Worldwide terrorism of different sorts, it seems like just a hair to the dog. Or it could be the stick that breaks the camel's back.

As you can see I am thinking openly here, I am in doubt.

As for terrorism, I do believe it's as unstoppable as war was in older times (or in Africa now). I consider it the price to pay for enjoying a system of distributed power and personal freedom. In a reign of private individuals, some private individuals will do harm. In a reign of state and country, the state will do the harm and can be held responsible. Part of the price to pay for interconnection, globalization, and particularly liberalization. That doesn't mean security should not be of top concern!

The problem with Iran is that it plays it both ways. Even if Iran were obliterated for the dubious crime of developing their military and energy sectors, what other places would have to be destroyed to do away with the many private individuals that receive now or in the past help and sponsorship from Iran. Destroy Lebanon too, and most of Europe as well?. How many terrorist per civilians in a given area render that area apt for obliteration?

I can't answer what I'd do (unless in a game), this deserves a lot more consideration and thankfully I'm not a Pentagon strategist. I'm willing to continue reading and learning more. This is not a clear cut situation.

I'm not interested in speculating what would have happened, and it isn't really relevant (if you think it is, I'm willing to consider why you believe it). My purpose in mentioning veitnam was, using your chosen example, to counter your implied point that conventional war is innefectual. The factors that are relevant to both the Vietnam war and our current war with the Islamists are resolve and clarity. The NVA had them, the Islamists have them, and the West has lacked them since after the days of Churchill. Your own position is a case in point.

I'm not interest in speculative scenarios either my point was that there are wars that are better not to be fought. "Chose your battles".

Specifically I am aware of the irony that while America failed to protect Capitalism in Vietnam, decades later it turned out not to matter, Capitalism is flourishing there anyway. not just in shoe "sweat shops", and now Vietnam is the opposite of a nation that could do us harm.

Our enemies will be defined by an active process of identification. Once clarity is brought to the issue and those enemies are called out, pressure can be put on our allies to dismantle any Islamist networks within their own spheres of influence.

cool, let's do that then. what an undertaking though!

[mdegges]

If we agree that the majority of civilians are not politically involved, meaning they're "innocent," then by killing them no threat has been erased. All you have done is brutally murder thousands of people. Yes, brutally:

"Those within approximately a six square mile area (for a 1 megaton blast) will indeed be close enough to "ground zero" to be killed by the gamma rays emitting from the blast itself. Ghostly shadows of these people will be formed on any concrete or stone that lies behind them, and they will be no more. Outside the circle where people will be instantly vaporized from the initial gamma radiation blast, the light from the explosion (which is many times hotter than the sun) is so bright that it will immediately and permanently blind every living thing, including farm animals (including cows, sacred or otherwise), pets, birds while in flight and not to mention peasants, Maharajah's, and Government officials -- and soldiers, of course. Whether their eyes are opened or closed. This will happen for perhaps 10 miles around in every direction (for a 1 megaton bomb) -- further for those who happen to be looking towards the blast at the moment of detonation. Even from fifty miles away, a 1 megaton blast will be many times brighter than the noonday sun. Those looking directly at the blast will have a large spot permanently burned into their retinas, where the light receptor cells will have been destroyed. The huge bright cloud being nearly instantly formed in front of them (made in part from those closer to the blast, who have already "become death"), will be the last clear image these people will see.

"Most people who will die from the nuclear explosion will not die in the initial gamma ray burst, nor in the multi-spectral heat blast (mostly X-ray and ultraviolet wavelengths) which will come about a tenth of a second after the gamma burst. Nor will the pressure wave which follows over the next few seconds do most of them in, though it will cause bleeding from every orifice. Nor even will most people be killed by the momentary high winds which accompany the pressure wave. These winds will reach velocities of hundreds of miles an hour near the epicenter of the blast, and will reach velocities of 70 miles per hour as far as 6 miles from the blast (for a 1 megaton bomb). The high winds and flying debris will cause shrapnel-type wounds and blunt-trauma injuries.

"Together, the pressure wave and the accompanying winds will do in quite a few, and damage most of the rest of the people (and animals, and structures) in a huge circle -- perhaps hundreds of square miles in area.

"Later, these people will begin to suffer from vomiting, skin rashes, and an intense unquenchable thirst as their hair falls out in clumps. Their skin will begin to peel off. This is because the internal molecular structure of the living cells within their bodies is breaking down, a result of the disruptive effects of the high radiation dose they received. All the animals will be similarly suffering. Since they have already received the dose, these effects will show up even if the people are immediately evacuated from the area -- hardly likely, since everything around will be destroyed and the country would be at war.

"But this will not concern them at this time: Their immediate threat after the gamma blast, heat blast, pressure wave and sudden fierce wind (first going in the direction of the pressure wave -- outwardly from the blast -- then a moment later, a somewhat weaker wind in the opposite direction), will be the firestorm which will quickly follow, with its intense heat and hurricane-force winds, all driving towards the center where the radioactive mushroom-shaped cloud will be rising, feeding it, enlarging it, and pushing it miles up into the sky."

..and the list goes on. I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no justification for using nukes at all. Is there really no other way of defending your country than basically wiping out another, when only a few handfuls of people are the cause of the problems in the first place? I think a lot of people have forgotten that regular bombs exist.

Carelessly talking about nuclear weapons ("get rid of the entire middle east") means you have little to no regard for human life.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Michele Degges

[EC]

As new member Michele points out, killing civilians is not ok, it can be morally acceptable only in some circumstances; and it disturbs me to talk about it so lightly, even revel on it.

Read above. You are not understanding. I don't revel in anyone's death. I am saying that the moral action to take is the one that ends the threat in the quickest way with the lowest number of casualties to the side with justice and reason on their side. The blame for their unfortunate deaths lies with the immoral government who forced us to take drastic measures to end the threat.

[volco]

I'd like to know what course of action you would have us take, based on these scattered premises.

who is us? you mean to say if I were in power?

I'd issue short of 6 million passports and send them to the American Embassy in Tel Aviv

and/or

Read above. You are not understanding. I don't revel in anyone's death. I am saying that the moral action to take is the one that ends the threat in the quickest way with the lowest number of casualties to the side with justice and reason on their side. The blame for their unfortunate deaths lies with the immoral government who forced us to take drastic measures to end the threat.

If only it worked!

And end the threat? There's threat everywhere, it's not concentrated in a defined place nowadays. As I said before, if this approach worked, Iran will be the first and last country to experience it.

[volco]

Carelessly talking about nuclear weapons ("get rid of the entire middle east") means you have little to no regard for human life.

'

thanks, that's basically the spirit of what bothers me about this "approach"

[EC]

when only a few handfuls of people are the cause of the problems in the first place?

This is where you are mistaken. This is the reason why toppling a dictatorship does not work. Their leaders do truly represent the majority view even if they disagree with the means in certain instances. They are not truly "innocent" in most cases. I'm saying the majority support state supported militant Islam.

To say that I have no regard for human life is blanking out the whole justification for justice. We are the true innocents. It is for the sake of saving our innocent lives so that we can live the life proper to man without death looming around the corner from an evil aggressor. I repeat their own government is responsible for their truly innocent civilian citizen's death as a justified response to defend ourselves against our own death or destruction. I am valuing life and defending a system that makes it possible.

[volco]

Who is We, the one in bold?

[mdegges]

Should've known better than to type my response in the chat box. I lost my original responses.

This is where you are mistaken. This is the reason why toppling a dictatorship does not work. Their leaders do truly represent the majority view even if they disagree with the means in certain instances. They are not truly "innocent" in most cases. I'm saying the majority support state supported militant Islam.

I see two problems with this: 1) Your argument is based on the assumption that the leaders represent the majority view, which cannot be proven. 2) You're going by the majority standard and forgetting the individuals that make up a country, who may or may not agree with their government system. Remember AR's quote, "A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority"? I know it was said in a completely different context, but I believe it also applies here. If you only consider the majority thought, and make life & death decisions based on this, then the minority's life is basically "voted" away.

[volco]

Should've known better than to type my response in the chat box. I lost my original responses.

I see two problems with this: 1) Your argument is based on the assumption that the leaders represent the majority view, which cannot be proven. 2) You're going by the majority standard and forgetting the individuals that make up a country, who may or may not agree with their government system. Remember AR's quote, "A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority"? I know it was said in a completely different context, but I believe it also applies here. If you only consider the majority thought, and make life & death decisions based on this, then the minority's life is basically "voted" away.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=22638

[EC]

Who is We, the one in bold?

Citizen's of mostly free nations like the US that are having their rights violated by Islamofacsists.