Iran Catch-All | IRAN WAR

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 115K
  • Politics 
The Middle East would be safer if Iran had a nuke. The reason it uses proxies is that it has no good way to defend itself against Israel, which has a nuke.

I know this sounds ridiculous at first, but remember: MAD has been one of the most effective anti-war policies in history. And that's why in the 1970s, the US and the Soviet Union entered a treaty restricting the use of anti-ballistic missiles.
 
gregh1 said:
Why are we getting involved at all? Israel did this without our approval. We shouldn't be mettling in that region... since israel doesn't act like an ally aside for the money they give to lockheed-martin and our defense industry.
Click to expand...
Hopefully we want to defend the only democracy in the middle east.
 
superrific said:
The Middle East would be safer if Iran had a nuke. The reason it uses proxies is that it has no good way to defend itself against Israel, which has a nuke.

I know this sounds ridiculous at first, but remember: MAD has been one of the most effective anti-war policies in history. And that's why in the 1970s, the US and the Soviet Union entered a treaty restricting the use of anti-ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...
I hear you on MAD, but I don't think Iran having a nuke would make anything safer. Iran's population is educated and rational. Iran's leadership is not.
 
superrific said:
The Middle East would be safer if Iran had a nuke. The reason it uses proxies is that it has no good way to defend itself against Israel, which has a nuke.

I know this sounds ridiculous at first, but remember: MAD has been one of the most effective anti-war policies in history. And that's why in the 1970s, the US and the Soviet Union entered a treaty restricting the use of anti-ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...
MAD only works if both sides are afraid to die.
 
wmheel1287 said:
By that measure, the US should most certainly not have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
I wish NOBODY had nuclear weapons. And I fear every day the fact that the nuclear key is in the hands of the worst human in American history. But just as I have hope that Iranians will eventually prevail over their despotic government, I hope we'll hold on for another 3.5 years until sanity resumes.
 
lawtig02 said:
Iran's leadership is not.
Click to expand...
The evidence from almost 50 years of their rule suggests otherwise. We quake in our boots because they cosplay armageddon, but a lot of that came from Ahmadinejad.

The irony is that the Iranians are some of the best in the world at applying strategic irrationality. In fact, they are too good. They make people actually scared rather than worried. While this might seem a gossamer distinction in most contexts, it's pretty fucking important for strategic irrationality. South Korea isn't scared that North Korea will YOLO an attack of Seoul. It's worried about it. That's the difference between ordering a military attack after a cruise ship gets blown to bits and taking a more measured approach.
 
ZenMode said:
MAD only works if both sides are afraid to die.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the Iranian clerics? These are not men eager to die. They are clinging to life as long as they can. Khameni is 86 years old. You don't get to be that age if you didn't care about dying.
 
lawtig02 said:
I hear you on MAD, but I don't think Iran having a nuke would make anything safer. Iran's population is educated and rational. Iran's leadership is not.
Click to expand...
This. If Iran were to get nukes, it would only be a matter of time before one of those nukes detonated in an Israeli or American city. That's not only from a political aspect (religious nutjobs are more likely to want to engage in suicide attacks that inflict maximum carnage), but from a security aspect as well. Iran's regime is unstable and it is feasible that it could collapse and those nukes could end up in anyone's hands.
 
None of this is worthwhile strategically unless we disable Fordow, which requires US airman and munitions. I fully expect that's what will come next.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
This. If Iran were to get nukes, it would only be a matter of time before one of those nukes detonated in an Israeli or American city. That's not only from a political aspect (religious nutjobs are more likely to want to engage in suicide attacks that inflict maximum carnage), but from a security aspect as well. Iran's regime is unstable and it is feasible that it could collapse and those nukes could end up in anyone's hands.
Click to expand...
Democrats seem to greatly underestimate just how serious Islamic terrorists are about wiping out Israel, the lengths they will go to accomplish it and how little concern they have for their lives on Earth.
 
ZenMode said:
Hopefully we want to defend the only democracy in the middle east.
Click to expand...
Why can’t they defend themselves with the money we’ve already given them? They’ve received multiples more money from the US than Ukraine has and they are fighting an enemy that has a small fraction of the capabilities of Russia.
I’d rather defend a democracy that didn’t start a conflict and doesn’t try to manipulate US policy for their own benefit and at the expense of the average American.
 
superrific said:
Have you seen the Iranian clerics? These are not men eager to die. They are clinging to life as long as they can. Khameni is 86 years old. You don't get to be that age if you didn't care about dying.
Click to expand...
This. How often have you seen the Ayatollahs and top Iranian leadership blow themselves up? They like Putin like living and know that the biggest threat to their survival (other than a completely unleashed Bibi with unlimited Trump support) is initiating nuclear war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top