World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Dwarven Pirate · 08-22-2007, 03:08 AM

[quote=S-2;399758]Depends upon the relative levels of destruction and the means employed. Measured against the assurance of Tel Aviv becoming utterly irradiated ("terrible destruction") should your "mere chance" come to pass, a successful pre-emptive conventional attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and ancillary operations ("terrible destruction now") doesn't seem a bit irrational by my calculus.QUOTE]

Yeah, it would seem to be, couched in those terms. But in order for that "successful pre-emptive conventional attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and ancillary operations" to be effective it must be the end of it.

I mean, what is to stop them trying again somewhere else? Because I would expect them to try again, and again. Are we going to do this every five or ten years forever?

Anyhow, I dont think this is what the US is contemplating, really. If this is what we wanted, I think we would just go ahead and do it. All the debate and cetera leads me to believe it is something much greater that we have in mind for Iran. More along the lines of our endeavours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks for the links, I, for one, am going to read them.

gunnut,

I think I did suspect you were referring to nuclear strike or invasion. Sorry! And I agree, signators to treaties ought to abide by them.

As to the position you speak of regarding the possession of nukes, I would agree with them on a strictly moral basis. But we would be fools to stand on principle where the survival of the species is involved, lol.

08-22-2007, 03:08 AM	#72 (permalink)
Dwarven Pirate Contributor Join Date: 08-20-07 Posts: 325	[quote=S-2;399758]Depends upon the relative levels of destruction and the means employed. Measured against the assurance of Tel Aviv becoming utterly irradiated ("terrible destruction") should your "mere chance" come to pass, a successful pre-emptive conventional attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and ancillary operations ("terrible destruction now") doesn't seem a bit irrational by my calculus.QUOTE] Yeah, it would seem to be, couched in those terms. But in order for that "successful pre-emptive conventional attack against Iranian nuclear facilities and ancillary operations" to be effective it must be the end of it. I mean, what is to stop them trying again somewhere else? Because I would expect them to try again, and again. Are we going to do this every five or ten years forever? Anyhow, I dont think this is what the US is contemplating, really. If this is what we wanted, I think we would just go ahead and do it. All the debate and cetera leads me to believe it is something much greater that we have in mind for Iran. More along the lines of our endeavours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks for the links, I, for one, am going to read them. gunnut, I think I did suspect you were referring to nuclear strike or invasion. Sorry! And I agree, signators to treaties ought to abide by them. As to the position you speak of regarding the possession of nukes, I would agree with them on a strictly moral basis. But we would be fools to stand on principle where the survival of the species is involved, lol.