Topic awaiting preservation: A nulcear first-strike against Iran? (Page 1 of 1)

US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries

quote:

---

The draft paper argues that the US must reserve the right to strike first with nuclear weapons in cases where an attack may be imminent

---

The question being - woud you support a nuclear first-strike against Iran, assuming that they were threatening "serious consequences and hinting at using nuclear arms as those consequences"?

Iran Threatens Consequences If Its Case Goes to U.N. Council

quote:

---

It is natural that such an event will have consequences, but right now I do not want to go into what the repercussions would be.

---

And what would your reaction be to such an event?

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-12-2005 08:48)

Support:
No.
I simply cannot see that it should be impossible to resolve an issue like this without resorting to nukes. I'm fully aware that violence in some shape or form might be involved, but with todays technology, training and weapons, should a nuke really be needed unless the preemptive objective was to level the whole country?

Reaction:
Personally I would be very very afraid...
Seeing that these measures are being discussed primarily with mid-eastern countries in mind there is no doubt in my mind that such an event will generate a never-ending stream of retalitory attacks against the whole western world. Why give extremists a reason that non-extremists actually might agree with? It's not like they like the western world as it is now...

I'm not an American, but I feel this is a way to large issue to be confined to the US.
/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{Proudly running OSX, Debian, WXP, W98, well not so proudly on the last 2...}-
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-
-{"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.?}-

I wonder if this is related to reports in July of Cheney tasking STRATCOM with coming up with a similar "nuclear option". Anyways...

quote:

---

The question being - woud you support a nuclear first-strike against Iran, assuming that they were threatening "serious consequences and hinting at using nuclear arms as those consequences"?

---

Considering Iran is not going to have nuclear capabilities themselves for another five to ten years, and any 'threat' is likely to be manufactured IMO, no. Not willing to take the risk of being wrong.

If they are intent in taking Iran, don't be surprised if some "intelligence" turns up in the near future indicating what a serious threat they are. Perhaps they will tie Iran in to the allegation that nuclear weapons have been smuggled into the US through the Mexico border (which is still wide open BTW). That would be an immediate threat.

In any case, it is troubling indeed, and after four hours researching Blackwater USA and other guns-for-hire, I am in far too cynical a mood to go further. Time for sleep.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

We have enough non-nuclear weapons to raze the entire country to the ground if necessary (not that I think it ever will be), so no, absolutely not - there's never a good reason to use nukes. We shouldn't have any and neither should they.

You know, I'm just looking at this thing (thank god it isn't a law yet) and in light of Mr. Bush, I am thinking "what the hell are we considering putting into that man's hands?"

We have a check and balance type of system on the Nukes right now. I don't think that removing such is a very bright idea, especially if one reads the proposed draft closely.

Let us say, for s**ts and grins, that this actually becomes law, and 2 years from now, Mr. Bush decides that Iran, or North Korea has ran out his patience - and boom! One nuclear mushroom, served sizzling hot.

How can any agency even begin to prove that there wasn't a WMD threat? This doesn't have to be done in the case of nukes - it could be biological or chemical agents, as well (according to the proposed draft). Well, there wouldn't be anything left of a biological or chemical agent, now would there?

I remember the Cold War, very well. The very real, imminent feeling of total destruction. Well, now we have the Nuke Button - nuke'em before they can do something to us. I can see its use as a threat, but to seriously consider using this (or actually doing it) really scares the shit out of me. Think about the number of casualties such an event would cause.

I can only see this in the light of madness.

Don't forget that in a large portion of the public, one major reason US went into Irak the second time was that Irak had hidden WMD.

As far as I know, this is yet to be proven and with Nukes it would be a wee bit late by now...
/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{Proudly running OSX, Debian, WXP, W98, well not so proudly on the last 2...}-
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-
-{"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.?}-

I think the real danger is Bush taking on N. Korea near the end of his term and making some 'emergency' powers for himself which wil allow him to remain in office indefinitely because of the 'war'.

Is there a safeguard in your constitution to prevent this?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Hi guys

quote:

---

making some 'emergency' powers for himself which wil allow him to remain in office indefinitely because of the 'war'.

---

That has been my fear too, and I've stated as such to my husband. It's really scary to think someone else thought it too. I don't know if it can "lawfully" happen though.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

It can't happen, unless Congress officially declares War - before that, the War Powers Act does not go into effect, if I am understanding this all correctly.

Normally, the Iraq War II is unconstitiutional in that Congress did not officially declare war, but instead allowed the President to go to war - which are two distinct, different things (at least, as I understand it and it was explained to me).

Of course, I'm sure Mr. Bush is crazy enough to try something like it - and that is scary.

Since when was the US restricted by acts, conventions, or laws?

If the US wants to bomb Iran (which would serve its purposes nicely by the looks of things) it will do so with no regard for anything but its own aims - and everybody knows there is f***-all anybody can do about it.

Makes it rather pointless discussing it really - just perpetuates the illusion that we live in a free society and have even the slightest influence in the supposedly democratic process.

The word of the people is worthless, and the rule of law is powerless - logic is simply a delusion and nothing we "know" is true.

*sags and shuffles away in a depressed manner, mumbling to himself*

(Edited by White Hawk on 09-15-2005 11:21)

Have more Faith in your fellow man, WH.

Oh, I have all faith in my fellow man - it's mankind (humanity?) I have an issue with.

I don't believe dubyah can serve a third term, even with the invocation of the War Powers Act.

The Republicans passed a law after the fourth election of FDR making it illegal for a president to serve more than two terms. They talked of revoking this law during the Regan administration, but that was a far as it went. It is possible there are other circumstances I'm not aware of, but, I don't think it is possible (under current law) for a president to serve more than two terms.

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution limits terms to 2 for the President of the United States.

quote:

---

Section 1

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

---

There are no exceptions to these term limits, it would seem. Therefore, Mr. Bush has no chance of getting a third term constitutionally, unless he finds a way to get this amendment amended - no easy task.

I think it is therefore safe to say that all we need to do is get through the next three years without nuking someone, and then we might be able to breath a sigh of relief...

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-15-2005 22:06)

Proposed repeal of the 22nd amendment.

The good news is, the chance of getting this passed is very slim. As Hyperbole said, they tried repealing it under Reagan, and IIRC Clinton as well. Anything is possible though. I've been watching this bill since its introduction in February.

The only other way I could conceive of an election cancellation or postponement is if something horrible happened here at home, such as a nuclear detonation or a sever attack on a similar level. If martial law is declared I think it possible for Bush to stay in office.

OTOH, if ML would be declared, one must wonder how much say the president would then have. He is CIC of the military, but we all know who is really running things.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

I would hope that any country that uses nukes would be denounced as being civilized. Including the USA.

I would, as an Ameirican, be ashamed of those within our government, who allowed such a thing to happen.

I also think there are few ideas going on within the US, that would be poison our economy.

Monies spent for the support of our Iraq initiative.
Monies spent for the states affected by Katrina.
Monies spent for the the eventual victims of Ophelia.

We are now STRETCHED too thin. Our economy will fall into a recession, after Mr. Greenspan retires this Jan 1st.

In my field of International freight forwarding we have already felt these effects. Airlines claiming bankruptcy. Fuel prices sky-rocketing. Ocean shipments becoming more common-place. And certain international "wood" requirements, being denounced & agreed upon, within the same breath.

Yes I still love this country, and all of the GOOD that it stands for, but lately,....................................................I am contemplating retirment abroad.

Just my opinion(s).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

Even declaring Martial Law will not allow Mr. Bush to take more terms than 2. There are example in US history, where Martial Law has been declared, and not one of them allowed a President to violate the 22nd Amendment.

To declare Martial Law for the entire Nation (which would be necessary) - there has to be either an Invasion, or a Civil War - so that the actual courts and congress cannot funtion. Then, and only then, could a President declare a national state of Martial Law.

Since I don't think one of those two conditions will happen (who is going to invade the US to a point where the courts and congress cannot function? For the second option, a civil war could happen, if the right conditions were met - I just don't think that the circumstances are dire enough), I think we can rest assured that at the end of the next three years, Mr. Bush will join the rest of us as a civilian and will never again be President.

WS, I sincerely hope ypu are right.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

To declare Martial Law for the entire Nation (which would be necessary) - there has to be either an Invasion, or a Civil War - so that the actual courts and congress cannot funtion. Then, and only then, could a President declare a national state of Martial Law.

---

This FACT that you post, will never DENY the ability of a president to create A constitutional amendment, to DESTROY the 22nd amendment!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

A President cannot create a constitutional amendment alone - UNLESS a National State of Martial Law exists - and this I mentioned when I said amend the 22nd Amendment.

In order to to enact a National State of Martial Law, there has to be the two instances that I mentioned.

You really should first research these things, before posting.

I wonder what happened if some country would want to go and inspect what US has in stock. For example China or Russia. "yea go right ahead. it's all top secret but who cares anyway"? Wtf is with the 'we are allowed to protect ourselves but noone else is'-mentality. I think Iran has just as much right to protect itself as any other country. Iran has probably understood that if they are going to sit idle Bush is going to move on to their oilfields right after he's done with Iraq. During his reign dollar has dropped 30% compared to Euro. Not mentioning the HUGE (8 trillion dollars - $8,000,000,000,000 - $27,000/citizen) debt his country is now struggling with. Iran lies right next to Iraq and oh so tempting 50% of the country's economy is based on oil. Bush is just waiting for a reason. I wonder what he's going to come up with this time.

"In God we trust." Lets go kill 68 million people! ... I hope that's not what your beloved country stands for.

I can't really symphatize with the majority of US people because 51% of them proved to be idiots in 2004 and over 30% still support Bush.

quote:

---

You really should first research these things, before posting.

---

Do you understand that people believe many things until somone like you responds, and makes them think otherwise?
Are you aware that you have this effect, as many others do as well?
How is one to thak ytou for helping thme change their mind, who have their facts wrong, without it going to your head?
Let alone you very condescending to the people who you do change their minds?

I have no propblem admitting that what I thought was wrong, but to a persona like you, it's just not an exciting internet interaction.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

You may take WS's responses however you will, however, you are presenting pieces of information as facts that are far from being facts. You are going te be told this. I do not know of any situation where you will not be called out for presenting incorrect information. If you present incorrect information you will be corrected, and not everyone is pleasant about it, and I do not think that anyone has to be.

You are dealing with a group of people who have a lot of knowledge and are also experts of the searching for knowledge. You will be fact checkeh.

I check up on anything I write here, and if I have not checked these facts I normally place a little disclaimer stating such. When you are attempting to enguage in an intellectual discussion it is very important that you first chech your bases, and do the research that the topic deserves.

Dan @ Code Town

As WM has so eloquently stated, one will be called on what one posts here. I know I have been in the past, continue to be in the present, and expect to be in the future.

I damn well better be.

It is the only way that I know of, to keep both feet solidly planted on the ground, and to keep learning.

The day I stop learning, is the day you can cremate my body, and scatter the ashes into the winds...

You lament maybe that you are not being fed nice, lavish words - or that maybe you are learning through what is discussed here, and no-one seems to be acknowledging that?

It is not the purpose of those who post here, to make you feel good. It is also not the purpose of those who post here, to make sure you are learning something from these posts. That is your responsibility - and is something you will have to take responsibility for. Or not, as the case may be.

One more thing -

quote:

---

Let alone you very condescending to the people who you do change their minds?

---

You're not the first to state such, and I'm sure there are others who consider me to be a condescending a@@hole. I certainly don't consider myself to be so, I just have a hell of a lot of life experience, and I rather suspect that the way I post, and what I tend to post, often comes across that way. My apologies, if you feel such. It is namely not my intent.

Posts here are fair, for the most part. The exchange from information, ideas, and opinions take place without resorting to total flame wars (well, mostly.. ). Most who post here, speak from experience, mostly hard won. Many are like me, who have climbed the ladders (not meaning that I am anywhere near the top - I don't think there actually is a top - at least, I can't see the end of the ladders) but we have paid our dues here.

If you come into a forum like this one, and try to throw some weight around, and get caught with your pants down - now who's fault is that? I call such a learning experience. I certainly went through mine, here. My entrance was less than grand. I hope that I have learned from it.

I would hope, that you have learned from yours.

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-20-2005 22:13)

Yeah, but, WS yours lumps were based on web design, not philosophy.

It is much easier to detatch onself from negitive reactions to your work as opposed to who you are, which is a lot of what philisophical discussions are.

Not that you have not taken some abuse here, but after all the time spent in Site Reviews this is close to a cake walk.

Dan @ Code Town

Actually, WM, I first took my "lumps" in PS - I posted a (thinking back on it now) pretty lame graphic - and I then decided to get "loudmouthed" at Jeni after she critiqued it (rather fairly, I must say, in hindsight) - and I got my behind soundly spanked.

Later I got "spanked soundly" again with web design...hehe - but the advice was sound, and helped me drastically improve my skills.

I was much more cautious, when I dared post in the Phil section, much later. Mostly I just lurked, and read what was posted, way back then.

The main point being, I stopped flapping my gums, and started listening to what many of the very talented and expereinced members were taking the time to say to me. Much of it was not "packaged" in nice, lavish words - and in hindsight, I thank every precious drop that they let me have.

quote:

---

As WM has so eloquently stated, one will be called on what one posts here.

---

Yes it was.

quote:

---

I know I have been in the past, continue to be in the present, and expect to be in the future.I damn well better be.It is the only way that I know of, to keep both feet solidly planted on the ground, and to keep learning.The day I stop learning, is the day you can cremate my body, and scatter the ashes into the winds...You lament maybe that you are not being fed nice, lavish words - or that maybe you are learning through what is discussed here, and no-one seems to be acknowledging that? It is not the purpose of those who post here, to make you feel good. It is also not the purpose of those who post here, to make sure you are learning something from these posts. That is your responsibility - and is something you will have to take responsibility for. Or not, as the case may be.

---

Thanks. No it is not that I am requiring anything from anyone, I have tough skin, and I can take it. I can also apologize, admit fault, and take responsibility for what I post. It's just a bit of an "all-encompassing" answer, that I get confused with.

If I post, " blue birds, came to California, and ate worms laced with mercury,", then I get " Shoo, and go research ". Sure I can shoo, and I can research, but where was I perceived to be wrong? Blue? Birds? California? Mercury? I am not demanding that anyone change anything. I just hope for a bit more specificity.

As for learning, I actually learn more from sites/people like those here, than I do any research. I learn about how facts are viewed by many different people. I have had, what I thought was fact, changed by people here, and I've only been here for a few weeks.

I think I've cut my pomposity, since when I first arrived. I hear that once you burn that bridge, there ain't no coming back. But only time, and my posts, will tell if that is true or not. I'd like to believe it is possible to re-build them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

"All will be revealed, in Time." - yup, nice quote.

Normally, if you see me posting a "go research it" - that is a polite way of saying "you have no clue what you are talking about, and are about to get hammered" - and often, one will get hammered in the next couple of posts by others.

I think DL demonstrated this point very well.

Yeah I saw that. Although sometimes he/others would rather "pile on", after you post.

But yes, I do see your post as a "heads up", and polite as well.

I hope to in the future, be an addition here, and not one who slows things down, and sidetracks the original issue.

Sorry about that.

" Back to your original program. Nothing to see here. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

A little giggle; http://filmstripinternational.com/index.php?asshole

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

^ Oh yes... and pretty much current. I luv this stuff.... on either side of the spectrum but don't ya think george makes it all a bit too easy? <lol>

For anyone interested, here's a link to the official Document (PDF) from the DoD concerning the ovehaul to our nuke strategy. Pretty dry reading for the most part, but worth skimming over if you are interested.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Considering Iran is not going to have nuclear capabilities themselves for another five to ten years

---

So, it follows that the logical approach is to stop them from ever having any, by any means.
Then a first strike will never be called for.

(^-^)b

By any means, including a nuclear strike or full-scale invasion? Or maybe we can place sanctions on them so another half-million or more children starve to death? There is nothing logical -- or at least nothing right -- in pre-emptive nuclear strikes, sanctions which only harm the common people, or full-scale invasions of sovereign nations.

Not that I think a nuclear Iran is a good thing, but it is a big move to carry through with any of those scenarios based on a theorietical event that is 5 to 10 years in the future.

Also, how are we going to accomplish this if they feel justified in having the nukes, and everyone telling them not to have them has massive stockpiles?

The only logical solution is to amend the power structure which deems that a nation with nukes carries more weight, and let's be honest, this is how it works. An complete overhaul of our pro-interventionist foreign policy, especially in the Middle-East would also work wonders.

In the end, the United States can neither afford nor manage a conflict with Iran IMO.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

I have to back up abit about Mr. Bush maybe being able to "extend" his stay in office, over the 8 year limit - Bush military bird flu role slammed

Even thinking about something along these lines is insane, that Mr. Bush is attempting to organize this should be a huge warning sign.

Every state has a National Guard, that they can use in event of Emergency (well, normally they do, if the Nat. Guard units are not half way around the world in a War Area).

Frankly, this set off my alarm bells. I never in my wildest dreams even considered that Mr. Bush would be willing to do something along these lines...

The man may really be thinking of attempting to stay in office longer than legally allowed.

On the news there was a report of a fella recovering from this flu in the US...they think he caught it in Wisconsin or some such place.

Wonder how it got there?

I fear you are right WS.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Right now I don't think we have the troops to do anything physically about Iran. If tried, I am sure it would end in disaster. Hell Bush wants to deal with this avian bird flu, by throwing the military at it. Of course that's another thread.

Beyond that, and as much as I stand up for what the US wants to do within this world, what if Iran really is trying to have nuclear power for only it's infrastructure. What's wrong with that?

My $ 0.02.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "