|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 12, 2010 8:27:51 GMT -8
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37653040It is most probably much more complicated and involved than this, but is the ball in Obama's court? Is he frozen at the wheel like he was/is over the oil spill?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 21, 2010 7:53:20 GMT -8
Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos!
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 21, 2010 10:48:18 GMT -8
Somebody posed an interesting hypothetical a while back related to this issue. Here's the scenario. . .
The Israeli ambassador to the U.S. requests an emergency meeting with Pres. Obama. Here's the conversation.
Obama: Good morning, Mr. Ambassador. Just what is it that you wish to speak with me about?
Amb.: Well, Mr. President, the state of Israel has determined that Iran is very close to developing nuclear weapons. Surely your intelligence has indicated the same thing to you.
Obama: Well, we know they are working hard on that project.
Amb.: Hard indeed, sir. All the efforts expended by other nations have really not persuaded the Iranian government to cancel their nuclear weapons programs. Given their hostility to Israel, we feel that we cannot allow those programs to continue.
Obama: But, Mr. Ambassador, surely you can see that it would be madness for them to use a nuclear weapon. They can be deterred even if they do develop a weapon and a practical delivery system.
Amb.: We cannot take that chance. They have threatened to destroy us and we take them at their word. Therefore we will strike the appropriate targets within 24 hours.
Obama: Mr. Ambassador! Please reconsider. Such an action would have the gravest consequences for the whole region, perhaps even for the whole world! Furthermore, we have determined that any attack by your country would be futile. The Iranians have put so many of their facilities underground.
Amb.: That would be correct, sir. Correct, that is, if we were going to use conventional high explosive weapons. We will not do that. Sir, we will use tactical nuclear weapons. We do not intend to allow Iran to stage a second Holocaust!
Now, just what does Obama say to that? (And don't tell me that it could not happen.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 21, 2010 11:17:24 GMT -8
If they are going to use nukes as a nuclear deterrent, then american forces in iraq, the persian gulf, germany, afghanastan should be scrambled to strike israel.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 21, 2010 13:11:04 GMT -8
If they are going to use nukes as a nuclear deterrent, then american forces in iraq, the persian gulf, germany, afghanastan should be scrambled to strike israel. Are you nuts? Just how long do you think the Obama Administration would last were that move made? |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 21, 2010 15:17:05 GMT -8
If they are going to use nukes as a nuclear deterrent, then american forces in iraq, the persian gulf, germany, afghanastan should be scrambled to strike israel. Are you nuts? Just how long do you think the Obama Administration would last were that move made? about as long as the world might should israel nuke iran |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 22, 2010 15:17:42 GMT -8
Are you nuts? Just how long do you think the Obama Administration would last were that move made? about as long as the world might should israel nuke iran I guess I should not have asked it you were nuts. That eliminated any chance at logic in the discussion. My bad! |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 22, 2010 16:15:05 GMT -8
about as long as the world might should israel nuke iran I guess I should not have asked it you were nuts. That eliminated any chance at logic in the discussion. My bad! are you telling me it is nuts to think that if Israel were to nuke iran, that that wouldn't lead to one of the following options that starts with a pact of arab states if not all islamic states and possibly some of the big boys: option 1. israel destroys much of the arab world until they surrender with or without the help of the US and west and with or without more nukes 2. Israel is defeated by an army of the capable males of the population somewhere near a billion as the United states refuses to interceed on their behalf 3. full scale and protracted war between superpowers happens in the mid east and throughout the world with europe, america, oceania, some of the colonies vs. the arabs, china, and Russia taking their role as free agent, though likely on the other side. The world and specifically the arab world would not sit by while Iran gets nuked, it would be incumbant on America to notify israel all ties would be cut, all support withdrawn and if they didn't stand down, military action on them would be used. I'm not crazy, that is the only option to the scenario. When no one had nukes we used them to end a war, don't you think it'll be fair game if someone starts a war of civilizations with them? |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 22, 2010 17:58:31 GMT -8
I guess I should not have asked it you were nuts. That eliminated any chance at logic in the discussion. My bad! are you telling me it is nuts to think that if Israel were to nuke iran, that that wouldn't lead to one of the following options that starts with a pact of arab states if not all islamic states and possibly some of the big boys: option 1. israel destroys much of the arab world until they surrender with or without the help of the US and west and with or without more nukes 2. Israel is defeated by an army of the capable males of the population somewhere near a billion as the United states refuses to interceed on their behalf 3. full scale and protracted war between superpowers happens in the mid east and throughout the world with europe, america, oceania, some of the colonies vs. the arabs, china, and Russia taking their role as free agent, though likely on the other side. The world and specifically the Arab world would not sit by while Iran gets nuked, it would be incumbent on America to notify Israel all ties would be cut, all support withdrawn and if they didn't stand down, military action on them would be used. I'm not crazy, that is the only option to the scenario. When no one had nukes we used them to end a war, don't you think it'll be fair game if someone starts a war of civilizations with them? Everything in Revelation looks to me like a ground war that escalates into a Nuclear War. The very reverence to Wormwood (Chernobyl) paints a radioactive picture. Notice how one third of the world's animal and plant life are killed in one swoop and then one quarter more die. You do not get that from ground wars, but you do from nuclear holocausts. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 22, 2010 20:17:36 GMT -8
But what would Obama do? I don't say that my scenario is likely. I do think it has a probability less than 50% but a lot higher than zero %.
Let's just say this. I hope to god Obama has considered this possibility. Even if it highy unlikely, it could happen. He had better be ready.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 22, 2010 20:40:13 GMT -8
But what would Obama do? I don't say that my scenario is likely. I do think it has a probability less than 50% but a lot higher than zero %. Let's just say this. I hope to god Obama has considered this possibility. Even if it highy unlikely, it could happen. He had better be ready. AzWm Israel is brash, Israel is aggressive, but I think we're talking 0 percent with a number of decimal places to the right of them using nuclear weapons to deter the production of nuclear materials - they know the outcome is full scale world war or at least arabs versus israel and a strong likelihood israel alone, no papa bear providing the arms, refills and tactical guidance. Obama is perhaps better prepared to deal with this almost absurdly unlikely situation because he is not beholden to Israel: he knows the direction of the patron-client states: many of our recent law makers and executives have treated them as an equal or as a the patron itself. He, and almost anyone else, would do everything to deter israel from basically executing the Arch Duke and that would include ending all ties and going public and then putting Israel down, nea decapitating it. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 22, 2010 20:51:15 GMT -8
Furthermore, Bush and Co. (and Clinton in the early stages) did not swipe at North Korea because the ramifications were inense - if you destabilize North Korea the Chinese would likely act by feeling threatened and striking back and/or creating a refugee holocost with the fleeing north Koreans since we know the south koreans and the thousands of Gis at the DMZ aren't going to let them in.
Iran makes money for a number of states, china and russia among them, and also european states. attempting anything other than a conventional campaign (and even that has some serious future and present risks) will have serious ramifications.
Nukes have proven to be a deterrent over the past half century, the presence of them in many parts of the world limits the upper middle of war - you come strong and swift conventionally or you don't come at all, you don't pull out the gas or the biological on the battle field for fear of losing cities at home, no one is pulling out tactical nukes first, they are dropping bad boys first and lots of them or else the risk total and utter annihilation, particulalry when you are on a piece of land that size, with a handful of dense population centers and a ring around the rosie of people you would unite to storm your gates
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 22, 2010 21:34:17 GMT -8
Monty, you are missing two very crucial points.
First, Israel has very little margin of error. In WWII the USSR was thrown back over 500 miles to the outskirts of Moscow and lost millions of people to the Nazis, yet the nation survived. Israel is so tiny, however, that it could never survive punishment even one tenth as bad as what hit the Soviets. The Israelis know that fact very well. We can pervaricate and stall and hope that we will be able to talk Iran into behaving. Since their very survival is a stake, the Israelis are not in a position to give hope a chance.
Add to the fact that the Iranians are developing nukes their open desire to destroy Israel and you should be able to understand why something as drastic as the use of nukes against Iran is not impossible. Unlikely, yes. I would say even highly unlikely. Unthinkable? No!
Second, you have not been paying attention to the news. It's pretty clear that the Arab states really fear Iran more than they fear, or hate, Israel. The Arab states might condemn Israel publicly if the latter were to attack Iran, but in private they would cheer. There is little love lost between the Arabs, who are Sunni, and the Persians, who are Shia.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 23, 2010 6:54:01 GMT -8
conventional strike against Iran with the fact that they are at least censured by the UN is one thing, and I agree, most arab states, and particularly shi'ites would not bat an eye, But you change the ball game if you talk about nuclear weapons, even if small and tactical - there is a huge conceptionally gulf between dropping bombs and firing shells that add up to or pass the payload of a nuke. The best thing Israel has going for it is the Islamic split over who is the successor to Mo, going above and beyond would put that in serious jeopardy and almost assuredly band the middle east together.
The bigger question in these things always is: why does America and its allies get to have nuclear weapons and no one else does?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 23, 2010 7:51:36 GMT -8
If they are going to use nukes as a nuclear deterrent, then american forces in iraq, the persian gulf, germany, afghanastan should be scrambled to strike israel. Are you nuts? Just how long do you think the Obama Administration would last were that move made? Perhaps we should let people know that Israel has the capacity to destroy the United States several times over. They could do so with only a couple of days preparation. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 23, 2010 7:56:22 GMT -8
The bigger question in these things always is: why does America and its allies get to have nuclear weapons and no one else does? That is very simple. Other than our momentary lapse in judgment in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have not used nuclear power to kill anybody. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 23, 2010 22:35:11 GMT -8
The bigger question in these things always is: why does America and its allies get to have nuclear weapons and no one else does? What do you mean, no one else? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 24, 2010 3:50:58 GMT -8
I guess I should not have asked it you were nuts. That eliminated any chance at logic in the discussion. My bad! are you telling me it is nuts to think that if Israel were to nuke iran, that that wouldn't lead to one of the following options that starts with a pact of arab states if not all islamic states and possibly some of the big boys: option 1. israel destroys much of the arab world until they surrender with or without the help of the US and west and with or without more nukes 2. Israel is defeated by an army of the capable males of the population somewhere near a billion as the United states refuses to interceed on their behalf 3. full scale and protracted war between superpowers happens in the mid east and throughout the world with europe, america, oceania, some of the colonies vs. the arabs, china, and Russia taking their role as free agent, though likely on the other side. The world and specifically the arab world would not sit by while Iran gets nuked, it would be incumbant on America to notify israel all ties would be cut, all support withdrawn and if they didn't stand down, military action on them would be used. I'm not crazy, that is the only option to the scenario. When no one had nukes we used them to end a war, don't you think it'll be fair game if someone starts a war of civilizations with them? What I think is that we have the most unstable set of cicumstances in the world since I can remember. We have extremely protective and intolerant leadership in Israel. We have a completely clueless leader and his equally clueless advisors in Washington. We have an Arab/Muslim World that hates us both and has very little consideration for the value of life. One of your options could happen, but a more likely event is a conventional strike on Iran with the knowledge and consent of the Saudis along with either the United States also helping in one way or another. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jul 24, 2010 6:38:01 GMT -8
Win, what we need is a Buddhism Drug that we can spread over all of the Muslim cities and towns. As soon as a person is exposed they want to live a devout Buddhist lifestyle. Buddhism, as I see it, is an undeveloped Religion that made it as far as the "gentle philosophy" stage. Buddhism evolved a philosophy that was so embracing and emasculating that it never moved on to the "War like" radical belief and expansion stage that so many religions evolve to. I have written down an outline on my belief that all religions evolve through specific stages. Buddhism never made it to the final stages and got hung up in the be gentle and kind stage. In two places in the world I see the possibility of progression to the additional stages. In India many Buddhists are accepting the reincarnation teachings of the Hindu sects. (The promise of an afterlife evolution). AND in Sri Lanka those peaceful and loving Buddhist monks have been active in their war for Tamil independence. (The War Like stage of religious evolution.) MY wife thinks I should write this up as a paper for a Doctorate in Religious Studies. I'll Pass. I do not need a PhD on my shoulders. They look massive enough already.   ;D |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 24, 2010 6:40:34 GMT -8
That is my point exactly, a conventional strike is about the only option on the table, America and American allies(Saudis) will condone it and draft it up.
|
|
;D