Does War With Iran Mean Global Conflict?

[TheEgoist]

Recently Russia and Iran have buddied more than in the past, which I feel is quite ironic given the Iranians feelings to the Russkies less than 20 years ago. Also, as far as I know China has supported Iran in it's nuclear processes. These are 2 giant nations, one of which is an uprising super power, and the other a recently fallen super power. If we engaged Iran in all-out War with Iran ( An action I doubt the Bush administration or any other administration will have the fortitude to initiate ), do you think it would simply be contained to the Middle Eastern front, with Middle Eastern nations, or will World Opinion of the U.S, specifically from gargantuan nations like China and Russia finally boil over and result in a possible 3rd world-wide war?

And if all that may happen, do you think it would still be worth attacking Iran for?

[Capitalism Forever]

If we just dropped a nuke on Tehran and did nothing else, Moscow and Beijing and the rest of World Opinion would fall over themselves to get the strongest Scotch tape to seal their mouths up with, lest they say anything that make "the mad cowboy in the White House" even toy with the idea of disliking them.

"The world" will never like America, nor accept America, nor even recognize its right to its existence. As long as America retains the slightest remnant of its founding spirit, it will always stand as a beacon of reason that the irrational collective calling itself "World Opinion" will seek to crush at any cost. The only way to get along with them is to make them fear America, which an all-out effort on our part to finish the war that Islam has started against us would serve perfectly well to achieve.

[TheEgoist]

If we just dropped a nuke on Tehran and did nothing else, Moscow and Beijing and the rest of World Opinion would fall over themselves to get the strongest Scotch tape to seal their mouths up with, lest they say anything that make "the mad cowboy in the White House" even toy with the idea of disliking them.

"The world" will never like America, nor accept America, nor even recognize its right to its existence. As long as America retains the slightest remnant of its founding spirit, it will always stand as a beacon of reason that the irrational collective calling itself "World Opinion" will seek to crush at any cost. The only way to get along with them is to make them fear America, which an all-out effort on our part to finish the war that Islam has started against us would serve perfectly well to achieve.

I am not even speaking of the act of bombing Tehran, which would be foolish in American and corporate interests anyway. I'm speaking of a huge airstrike against their Government buildings, slaughtering the clerics that rule the nation and if it comes to it, taking out Tehran ( Not with nukes, however ).

If we did that, I don't think the world would sit and watch passively, because of their hatred for America and American interests. They will not stand up to Islamic thugs like Mahmoud or Communist thugs like Chavez, but when America asserts its self interest, I think action would be taken.

And of course, I am talking about a merciless and spectacular show of American Self-Assertion there, not some half-assed take over like Iraq.

[Capitalism Forever]

I am not even speaking of the act of bombing Tehran, which would be foolish in American and corporate interests anyway.

I'd be delighted to hear you elaborate.

[TheEgoist]

1. Our nukes can be saved up for much more formidable opponents, like the afore mentioned nations China and Russia.

2. Nuclear destruction of a city can and will make many natural resources, such as oil, utterly useless.

3. We would not be able to do anything there for quite sometime, simply because of the radiation.

4. Iran can be brought to it's knees without the use of such brutal devices, especially considering the very rebellious youth that exist within Iran. I know the old speech about how people who are in guilty nations cannot be treated special, but using nukes seems absolutely unnecessary given America's vast airstrike options which don't have to lead to mass-civilian death.

[Inspector]

Ugh, you've read too many hippie pamphlets about nuclear weapons. Airburst nuclear strikes do not have significant, lasting radiation effects. Nuclear weapons simply do not work that way.

[Robert J. Kolker]

1. Our nukes can be saved up for much more formidable opponents, like the afore mentioned nations China and Russia.

2. Nuclear destruction of a city can and will make many natural resources, such as oil, utterly useless.

3. We would not be able to do anything there for quite sometime, simply because of the radiation.

4. Iran can be brought to it's knees without the use of such brutal devices, especially considering the very rebellious youth that exist within Iran. I know the old speech about how people who are in guilty nations cannot be treated special, but using nukes seems absolutely unnecessary given America's vast airstrike options which don't have to lead to mass-civilian death.

It were nukes and incendiaries used on a mass scale that brought Japan to its knees. The U.S. killed 700,000 civilians with the air raids. It seemed top work just fine. The fire bombings killed more civilians than the nuclear attacks, by the way. The way to deal with an enemy effectively is to burn their homes, burn their crops, destroy their infrastructure and most important of all, blow their bodies to smithereens or burn them to a crisp. It works every time. Ask the Japanese and the Germans. Brutality has its uses.

By the way, fallout and radiation is overestimated. The radiation can clear out in a few months if air bursts are used. The main thing is to keep the nuclear fireball away from the dirt on the ground. The real killer is shock blast and heat, not ionizing radiation.

Bob Kolker

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I personally favor helping them obtain enriched uranium by sending them some rather large samples. As a bonus, we should send them some plutonium as well.

In fact I would even arrange to have the packages do demos of uncontrolled chain fission reactions, just in case they needed to see how it would actually work.

[D'kian]

I personally favor helping them obtain enriched uranium by sending them some rather large samples. As a bonus, we should send them some plutonium as well.

What? No tritium? I know it's expensive, but a little bit goes a long way. A very long way.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

What? No tritium? I know it's expensive, but a little bit goes a long way. A very long way.

Yeah, but I figured for demo purposes only fission need be done. Wouldn't want to overload their seventh century minds.

Maybe I wasn't giving them enough credit. Sure, let's send them some tritium too.

[The Wrath]

No, I don't think it would result in a third world war. It would be more of the same that happened with Iraq...the world gets pissed, but lives to see another day. It might piss Russia and China off, but they don't care enough about Iran to risk going to war with us.

And to people demanding that we nuke Iran, you should really think more about the consequences before you suggest that. Is war with Iran inevitable and necessary? Well, yes. But think about the unintended consequences of nuclear weapons...and I'm not talking about civilian casualties or environmental damage.

In today's world, nukes are basically status symbols. Nukes are not generally viewed as a tactical weapon, so much as a weapon of deterrence. No country is seriously considering the use of nuclear weapons against another country, despite the conflicts that they find themselves embroiled in...particularly Israel, Pakistan, and India. If we nuke Tehran, it would quickly accomplish our immediate goals, but it would also normalize the tactical use of nuclear weapons. It would make it more acceptable to other countries. It isn't hard to imagine a scenario where Russia looks at our use of nukes and says "Well, hey, I guess it's cool now...let's nuke Grozny!" Then, who knows what the hell would happen with North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan/India. I think it's safe to say that Britain and France would still not use them.

[D'kian]

Yeah, but I figured for demo purposes only fission need be done. Wouldn't want to overload their seventh century minds.

Well, there are tritium-boosted fission bombs, you know. It's a decent neutron source.

Maybe I wasn't giving them enough credit. Sure, let's send them some tritium too.

It's not so much credit as bang for the buck. And a brief new sun can't hurt (us).

[D'kian]

In today's world, nukes are basically status symbols. Nukes are not generally viewed as a tactical weapon, so much as a weapon of deterrence.

Among rational people and semi-rational ones, I agree.

With people like the Iranian president, I'm not so sure. Read up on his statements. He's convinced the arrival of the Mahdi can be hastened by provoking global chaos. Plus he may think that Nuking israel would make him a gero and, perhaps, ruler of the Muslim world.

Maybe he can be deterred by the threat of massive retaliation, then again maybe not. The best thing to do is not to put ourselves in a position to find out. Thus we must deny Iran the bomb by any means necessary.

Now, I agree that using nukes against Iran right now would be unwise. Partly for the reasons you cite, but also because one does not demolish a house in order to rid it of vermin.

[-archimedes-]

Recently Russia and Iran have buddied more than in the past, which I feel is quite ironic given the Iranians feelings to the Russkies less than 20 years ago. Also, as far as I know China has supported Iran in it's nuclear processes. These are 2 giant nations, one of which is an uprising super power, and the other a recently fallen super power. If we engaged Iran in all-out War with Iran ( An action I doubt the Bush administration or any other administration will have the fortitude to initiate ), do you think it would simply be contained to the Middle Eastern front, with Middle Eastern nations, or will World Opinion of the U.S, specifically from gargantuan nations like China and Russia finally boil over and result in a possible 3rd world-wide war?

And if all that may happen, do you think it would still be worth attacking Iran for?

Make that Russia, China & India, that have all lately buddied up to Iran. But in the midst of our mutually expressed hatred for the Iranian government, let us not overlook the reason for them jumping into bed with one another (figuratively speaking), i.e., the pre-perceived oil shortage given the increased demand by the previously mentioned countries due to their population expansion.

Albeit, Iran has taken advantage of their position in this situation to wrangle technological information, materials, and whatever readily obtainable associative componentry for nuclear power production/technology in exchange for shared rights to their oil fields, but does this excuse the named countries of their obvious ("?") oversight is the question that we should really be asking.

Taking all of this into consideration when pondering the question of whether or not American action against Iran for their nuclear materials development efforts would lead to a potential 3rd. world war, well...leaves one with much to contemplate but...I know that we DO NOT WANT TO GO THERE for any number of reasons.

And for those of you advocating nuking Iran, even an air burst/"above ground" nuclear event while disclaiming the likelihood of widespread nuclear fallout, you need to understand the impact that any nuclear explosion has on our already embattled Ozone layer....http://www.paradisian.net/Nuclear%20Effects.htm/, because you obviously don't.

Edited October 22, 2007 by -archimedes-

[RationalBiker]

And for those of you advocating nuking Iran, even an air burst/"above ground" nuclear event while disclaiming the likelihood of widespread nuclear fallout, you need to understand the impact that any nuclear explosion has on our already embattled Ozone layer....http://www.paradisian.net/Nuclear%20Effects.htm/, because you obviously don't.

Well, a link to an article on Paradisian Publications web site.... that's a slam dunk argument. Now I can believe in A Buddhist Jesus, Islam and Christian Vegetarians too. You think you can find a better source than a religious, vegetarian, environmentalism web site?

[Inspector]

It isn't hard to imagine a scenario where Russia looks at our use of nukes and says "Well, hey, I guess it's cool now...let's nuke Grozny!" Then, who knows what the hell would happen with North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan/India.

The thing that would hold them back from such action would be the only thing that has ever held them back - our nuclear arsenal and threat to use it on them.

In today's context, there is nobody with the minerals to do it properly - to use them and then stare down the Russians and Chinese without blinking. But that isn't to say that there shouldn't be such a man - of if there were that he should do any less.

[-archimedes-]

Well, a link to an article on Paradisian Publications web site.... that's a slam dunk argument. Now I can believe in A Buddhist Jesus, Islam and Christian Vegetarians too. You think you can find a better source than a religious, vegetarian, environmentalism web site?

How about these:

(Note 5) ,

(Sec. 5.4, subsec. 5.4.1, & Sec. 5.2, subsec. 5.2.2.1) ,

(overview of the physical effects, initial, subsequent and lasting) ,

(Paragraph "Alterations of the Global Environment", sub-parag. "B") ,

or even (An entire paper written by the Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications...page 112- specifically addresses the effects on the ozone layer) .

Are they more suited to what you'd be inclined to consider as reputable sources?

p.s. I've got more.

Edited October 23, 2007 by -archimedes-

[The Wrath]

Among rational people and semi-rational ones, I agree.With people like the Iranian president, I'm not so sure. Read up on his statements. He's convinced the arrival of the Mahdi can be hastened by provoking global chaos. Plus he may think that Nuking israel would make him a gero and, perhaps, ruler of the Muslim world.Maybe he can be deterred by the threat of massive retaliation, then again maybe not. The best thing to do is not to put ourselves in a position to find out. Thus we must deny Iran the bomb by any means necessary.Now, I agree that using nukes against Iran right now would be unwise. Partly for the reasons you cite, but also because one does not demolish a house in order to rid it of vermin.

Ahmadinejad is a demagogue...hence his firey rhetoric. I also think he is a rational actor. By that, I don't mean that he is "rational" in the Objectivist sense, but rather that he weighs the worldly costs and benefits of his actions, before making a decision. I don't think he is like the radical Islamist terrorists who don't value their own lives. Ahmadinejad will not want to do anything to put the Iranian regime in danger. He perceives, and rightly so, that the West is a paper tiger and unwilling to stop him from getting nukes. He isn't so naive as to think we'll let him actually use one and get away with it. He knows that the instant he uses one, Iran gets turned into a parking lot. I also don't think we should be overly worried about Iran giving/selling nukes to terrorists. Al Qaeda is much more likely to steal a nuke from Pakistan...or just take over the Pakistani government, and acquiring them that way. I think that Iran's desire for nukes is the same as anyone else's...as a symbol of power. The real danger in Iranian nukes is that it will upset the balance of power in the Middle East. As much as Saudi Arabia sucks, I'd rather it not lose its current status as most influential country in the Middle East, if it means that Iran takes its place.

Don't misread what I'm saying...I absolutely think Iran should be prevented from getting the Bomb. I'm just not convinced that Ahmadinejad and company would actually use one. Maybe, but I doubt it. I think the probability is low enough that we don't want to risk turning nukes into a normalized form of warfare.

The thing that would hold them back from such action would be the only thing that has ever held them back - our nuclear arsenal and threat to use it on them.In today's context, there is nobody with the minerals to do it properly - to use them and then stare down the Russians and Chinese without blinking. But that isn't to say that there shouldn't be such a man - of if there were that he should do any less.

I don't think that it's just our nuclear arsenal holding them back. But you actually helped make my point. It's deterrence. If nukes become normalized, then humanity is in for a dismal 21st century. And we wouldn't nuke Russia, if Russia nuked Chechnya. We don't care enough about the Chechens to go to nuclear war over it.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Moose

[RationalBiker]

Are they more suited to what you'd be inclined to consider as reputable sources?

Well, let's see;

Thus nuclear testing to date does not appear to pose a severe radiation threat in global terms. But a nuclear war releasing 10 or 100 times the total yield of all previous weapons tests could pose a far greater worldwide threat.

More worrisome is the possible effect of nuclear explosions on ozone in the stratosphere.

(my bold emphasis)

Those are from your source ; http://www.cold-war.info/nukwr10.html . They don't seem to be as certain as you.

Most of the articles indicate that any 'possible' threat to the environment would depend on the magnitiude of the attack. Thus one can easily conclude that smaller attacks would likely be less damaging, if at all, in any widespread global sense. So your claim that ANY nuclear explosion is bad for the "embattled" (whatever that means) ozone is still in question.

Second, if you are going to post a bunch of links, even if you find credible ones, it would help if you highlighted the information that allegedly supports you argument rather than throwing a magnitude of information at people and claiming it supports what you are saying.

PS: I thought I'd add one more quote from your source;

We have come to realize that nuclear weapons can be as unpredictable as they are deadly in their effects. Despite some 30 years of development and study, there is still much that we do not know. This is particularly true when we consider the global effects of a large-scale nuclear war.

So not only does your source say the global effects are unpredictable, but it address "large scale" nuclear war as opposed what I'm assuming what some people are advocating here, a much smaller scale use of nukes.

Thanks for the sources.

Edit - Added another quotation and comment - RB

Edited October 23, 2007 by RationalBiker

[Inspector]

I don't think that it's just our nuclear arsenal holding them back. But you actually helped make my point. It's deterrence. If nukes become normalized, then humanity is in for a dismal 21st century. And we wouldn't nuke Russia, if Russia nuked Chechnya. We don't care enough about the Chechens to go to nuclear war over it.

Your theory as to why Russia does not nuke Chechnya is that nuclear weapons are not "normalized." This implies that the hypothetical US leader I speak of would say "I am doing this because it is normal." He wouldn't. He would say "I am doing this because my nation has the moral right to act in self-defense." He would proudly assert the USA's different and higher moral status than other nations and our ability to act thusly.

And if Russia and China don't like it, they can go pound sand.

This whole mess of "normalization" is based on the erroneous idea set forth by generations of cowards that nations like Russia and China are morally equal to the USA and that their "interests" are morally equal to ours. (thus, they can act in their "interests" in any way that we can)

All of this is, of course, false and accepting the idea of "normalization" only serves to cripple our ability to act properly to defend our nation non-self-sacrificially.

[-archimedes-]

Well, let's see;

(my bold emphasis)

Those are from your source ; http://www.cold-war.info/nukwr10.html . They don't seem to be as certain as you.

Inasmuch as the posters here seemed to be/were emphasizing the use of a low altitude nuclear detonation (as opposed to a ground level detonation...like it really mattered either way) as a more so "safe" method of nuclear usage, I worked to orient my input focused on the environmental side-effects foremost, then provide information detailing the overall effects of nuclear weaponry usage.

Ergo, the specific section of the document(s) in question, which I clearly cited ("Alterations of the Global Environment", sub-parag. "B"), is as follows:

[Removed enormous amount quoted material from links]

And then, instead of posting the entire report constructed by the Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications for the National Research Council, I'll provide you with a direct link to the page that I also specified in my previous post, i.e.,

(EFFECTS OF EMISSIONS: Ozone Shield Reduction) http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=540&page=112

So, what it is that I believe (giving you the benefit of the doubt) you took from whatever of the links I posted that you actually read were accounts of the "magnitude" of the harmful initial & lingering effects of our previous use of nuclear weaponry, both for the people directly affected, as well as the lasting environmental effects which, by the way, affects all of us even to today, hence the image of the rather much LARGER Ozone hole that was depicted in the "religious, vegetarian, environmentalism web site" (your words) that I initially posted (I can provide you with a link to an identical image directly from NASA if you'd prefer).

Oh, and:

American Heritage Dictionary

em·bat·tled (ěm-bāt'ld) adj.

1. Beset with attackers, criticism, or controversy: an embattled legislative minority.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.(Emphasis their own)

Second, if you are going to post a bunch of links, even if you find credible ones, it would help if you highlighted the information that allegedly supports you argument rather than throwing a magnitude of information at people and claiming it supports what you are saying.

As I covered above, I did "...highlight[] the information that...supports [my] argument...", by directing the viewer to the sections of the web sites that "...supports what [i'm] saying" with the very links themselves...Thank you for the advice though, I'll endeavor to be that much more so clear with future posts.

All in all, besides the peripheral concern of fending off attacks on the credibility of the referenced links I've posted in support of my position, the actual object of my efforts here are not to attack anyone, rather to inform those that are not so so that they will know to save them possible future confusion/misunderstanding, which I hope I have accomplished.

Edited by RationalBiker for the following;

Forum Rules

Links to outside sources

From time to time it may be helpful to post links to various articles-- feel free to do so if it benefits the discussion at hand. If you are quoting an outside source, respect copyright laws (and the ethical principles underlying them) by keeping the quotation very short and by providing a link or other reference to the original.

Improper quoting and scope

Keep your responses short by minimally quoting earlier posts or other, outside sources. Quote only the particular passage you are targeting with your comments--and no more (the snapback arrow within the quotation allows your readers to go back to see the full context in an earlier post). If you are replying to multiple people/topics, split up your response into multiple posts.

Edited October 23, 2007 by RationalBiker

[RationalBiker]

As I covered above, I did "...highlight[] the information that...supports [my] argument...", by directing the viewer to the sections of the web sites that "...supports what [i'm] saying" with the very links themselves...Thank you for the advice though, I'll endeavor to be that much more so clear with future posts.

As I've demonstrated in the quoted sections of my last post, the articles do not support your position that ("any nuclear explosion has on our already embattled Ozone layer [has an impact]"). Rather, they state that these Effects are unknown on global scale, and that the magnitude of the attack makes a difference.

I see (at least) two things necessary to shore up the problems with your claim. First, evidence as to what magnitude of nuclear explosion will necessarily deplete ozone in a fashion that would be of global concern. Second, that the magnitude being considered by the posters of this thread meets that threshold.

Of course there is the side issue of whether or not, depending on the specific circumstances, we should be more concerned about possible damage to the ozone versus possible nuclear attacks on us directly. It may be more beneficial for us to take the risk of the an ozone problem than the risk of a nuclear attack should it be determined that such attack were a viable threat.

All in all, besides the peripheral concern of fending off attacks on the credibility of the referenced links I've posted in support of my position, the actual object of my efforts here are not to attack anyone, rather to inform those that are not so so that they will know to save them possible future confusion/misunderstanding, which I hope I have accomplished.

I don't think I considered it an attack on anyone per se, though you were claiming some folks may be ignorant of information that perhaps that aren't as ignorant of as you claim. Likewise, based on the quoted sections I provided, one could assert that perhaps you are not as informed as you should be of what your own sources say on the issue as you project certainty in your position of the nuclear effects whereas they say a lot is still unknown about what the effects would be (particularly globally speaking). Taken further, if in one portion they indicate uncertainty of the impact, and in other sections assert a more certain position on the impact, one has to determine which section to believe (which in itself causes credibility problems with the information).

However, rather than assuming you were attacking anyone, I only considered that the information and claim you provided was of questionable credibility and I pointed that out (albeit in a slightly sarcastic manner). I would assume that you would understand that whether or not your purpose was to attack or simply to educate, the credibility of the information you provide is not simply "peripheral". It's quite germaine to the information and its dissemination on this forum that it withstands the scrutiny of not only being reliable and accurate, but also of supporting one's assertions.

Edited October 23, 2007 by RationalBiker

[The Wrath]

This whole mess of "normalization" is based on the erroneous idea set forth by generations of cowards that nations like Russia and China are morally equal to the USA and that their "interests" are morally equal to ours. (thus, they can act in their "interests" in any way that we can)

No, it really has nothing to do with moral equivocation, and much more to do with deterrence. Russia and China don't want the whole world coming down on them for using nukes...but if they see us use one, they would perceive that it would be more acceptable to do so and, thus, they would be less afraid of the possible negative consequences.

And I don't particularly care if you think I am a coward. In case you haven't noticed, I don't hold you in particularly high esteem.

[Inspector]

And I don't particularly care if you think I am a coward. In case you haven't noticed, I don't hold you in particularly high esteem.

Not that I'm a fan of yours, but I didn't call you a coward. I said that the whole "moratorium on nukes" idea was set in place by cowards - generations of them. Specifically, starting with when Truman stopped MacArthur from using them to defend against the Chinese attack in the Korean War.

[The Wrath]

I didn't call for a "moratorium on nukes." And if I had, it would be for the reasons that I described, rather than some ethical consideration about collateral damage. I'm just arguing that people are too hasty to demand that we nuke another country.

Nukes should be a last resort. They were a last resort against Japan, because we knew that only nukes would persuade them to give up their cause, due to the suicidal nature of their beliefs. There are other ways of dealing with Iran than using nukes. Until such a time as there is no other way of dealing with Iran, we should avoid using nukes. Whatever good would come from taking out Tehran would be outweighed the potential bad that would come from sending a message to the rest of the world that nukes are now a perfectly normal and acceptable means of settling disputes. Instead, we should be sending the message that they should not be normal and are only acceptable in very restrictive circumstances.

It may be that there are good reasons to consider nuking Iran. I haven't heard any on this forum. The most I've heard is some variant of "they fund terrorists and are supplying materials to insurgents who kill US soldiers." While that is certainly true, I'll glady watch the US government shell out a little extra cash for a conventional bombing campaign, if it means that I don't have to watch WWIII break out in South Asia as a result of normalizing the tactical use of nukes.