• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can Iran's nuclear program be stopped by military force alone?

Can Iran's nuclear program be stopped by military force alone?

  • Total voters
    18
Montecresto said:
First of all, you mischaracterise my position, which has always been, everybody has them, or nobody has them, stated such repeatedly. With the caveat that nobody having them as a preference. But sense I, and most everybody else has insisted, there will be no nuclear disarmament, what does that bring us back to, hmm? Obviously, sense nobodies going to get rid of them, it may just be what Iran would consider in their interest. Never mind that I have posted multiple sources with US and Israeli intelligence declaring that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and hasn't decided to build one. Now then, care to comment on the Council on Foreign Relations position that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would bring stability to the region? Or does that so **** up your meme, that you can't address it?
Click to expand...

You've just argued for Iranian nukes.
A person who argues for Iranian nukes cannot argue that nuclear weapons are bad and he doesn't want anyone to have them.
It's ridiculous. It's absurd. Take your efforts to convince anyone that you're not an immoral pro-Iranian propagandist elsewhere.
 
Again, the bottom line here is that Iran's nuclear program cannot be stopped by military force alone in the long term. Contrary to what some want to put forward, the people of Iran are capable of being properly integrated into the world political and economic system. Although force and the threat of it's use can play a constructive role, their overuse can make a situation worse and can create a self fulfilling prophecy. Time to move forward and get the nuclear deal that the Obama administration has been pushing for done.

I wish the President of the United States, Barack Obama, success in his efforts in this regard.
 
Apocalypse said:
You've just argued for Iranian nukes.
A person who argues for Iranian nukes cannot argue that nuclear weapons are bad and he doesn't want anyone to have them.
It's ridiculous. It's absurd. Take your efforts to convince anyone that you're not an immoral pro-Iranian propagandist elsewhere.
Click to expand...


No, I'll keep my opinions right here in your face, hear?
 
I guess when Netanboohoo comes to lecture Congress he will bring one of his crap visuals and talk about how Iran is 3 days from making a bomb. :lamo

Ole Netanboohoo. That guy is something else.
 
Santa Claus is coming to the U.S. He's got a surprise for everyone!

120927074234-benjamin-netanyahu-bomb-un-horizontal-gallery.jpg

BTW folks, they say that back in 1992 Netanyahu said Iran was 3 to 5 years from the bomb. The odd makers in Vegas should put odds on what he might say this time. :lamo'

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999. "Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East," Peres warned, "because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY."
Click to expand...

Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979. - Israel paints Iran as Enemy No. 1: 1992 - CSMonitor.com
 
Montecresto said:
First of all, you mischaracterise my position, which has always been, everybody has them, or nobody has them, stated such repeatedly. With the caveat that nobody having them as a preference. But sense I, and most everybody else has insisted, there will be no nuclear disarmament, what does that bring us back to, hmm? Obviously, sense nobodies going to get rid of them, it may just be what Iran would consider in their interest. Never mind that I have posted multiple sources with US and Israeli intelligence declaring that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and hasn't decided to build one. Now then, care to comment on the Council on Foreign Relations position that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would bring stability to the region? Or does that so **** up your meme, that you can't address it?
Click to expand...

Although I appreciate the sentiment here, its not plausible.

There are nearly 200 countries. Maybe 30-50 of them would be able to afford the infrastructure and expertise to support a strategically meaningful nuclear weapons program (Iran is #27 in GDP and they are just now obtaining the capability for it to be an option). For example, America's nuclear program averages $60,000,000,000 per year, mostly just maintenance (entry level costs are higher). That is 10% of famously wealthy Switzerland's yearly GDP. Scaling their economy to the United States's, it would be comparable to the yearly value of the entire American manufacturing sector. Almost prohibitively expensive unless you go to supernormal lengths like Iran has tried and Israel has done (American subsidies).

Then you would have countries like Pakistan that can barely keep control of their arsenals, with sympathetic agents in their intelligence communities a finger switch away from sending launch codes to armed Islamic radicals in the country's outlying territories that consider it their highest mission in life to drop a nuke on San Francisco or Mumbai regardless of the consequences. Even if you believe an entire society is reasonable, the most militarily proficient among them aren't necessarily. There is always at least one group of people in almost any society who hate another group of people enough to throw caution to the wind and do anything they can to get the nukes to kill them. Ergo, 90% of Iran might not want to bomb Israel, but the 2% out of the 10% that do serve in the militias that can make that happen under specific conditions that will become more and more likely as the world approaches resource scarcity.
 
Last edited:
Those who want to rah rah Netanyahu when he visits should remember how he has deliberately disrespected our leaders when they have visited Israel. Consider

In the midst of a high-profile trip by Vice President Joe Biden, Israel unveiled plans for new housing in disputed Jerusalem on Tuesday, a surprise step that embarrassed and angered the highest ranking Obama administration official yet to visit the country.

Biden, who had come to try to smooth relations with a longtime ally and promote new peace talks, denounced Israel's plans to build 1,600 housing units in traditionally Arab East Jerusalem as a threat to the search for peace.

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem," Biden said, calling it "precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now."

"We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them," Biden said.

The sharp turn of events abruptly changed the tenor of the trip in its second day, coming just hours after the vice president proclaimed his love for Israel and declared enduring U.S. support. Biden's visit followed a year of tension brought on by Israel's defiance of the Obama administration's admonitions on precisely the same issue: housing settlements in disputed areas.
Click to expand...

Biden's Israel visit takes a rocky turn - Los Angeles Times

So go and rah rah a guy who does not give a damn about what the U.S. thinks or is trying to do.
 
Yep that's right, right after the Vice President proclaims his love for Israel and promises U.S. support, they spit right in his face. But still, people over here want to rah rah Netanyahu and invite him over to embarrass the President of the United States. Damn!!!!
 
Morality Games said:
Although I appreciate the sentiment here, its not plausible.

There are nearly 200 countries. Maybe 30-50 of them would be able to afford the infrastructure and expertise to support a strategically meaningful nuclear weapons program (Iran is #27 in GDP and they are just now obtaining the capability for it to be an option). For example, America's nuclear program averages $60,000,000,000 per year, mostly just maintenance (entry level costs are higher). That is 10% of famously wealthy Switzerland's yearly GDP. Scaling their economy to the United States's, it would be comparable to the yearly value of the entire American manufacturing sector. Almost prohibitively expensive unless you go to supernormal lengths like Iran has tried and Israel has done (American subsidies).

Then you would have countries like Pakistan that can barely keep control of their arsenals, with sympathetic agents in their intelligence communities a finger switch away from sending launch codes to armed Islamic radicals in the country's outlying territories that consider it their highest mission in life to drop a nuke on San Francisco or Mumbai regardless of the consequences. Even if you believe an entire society is reasonable, the most militarily proficient among them aren't necessarily. There is always at least one group of people in almost any society who hate another group of people enough to throw caution to the wind and do anything they can to get the nukes to kill them. Ergo, 90% of Iran might not want to bomb Israel, but the 2% out of the 10% that do serve in the militias that can make that happen under specific conditions that will become more and more likely as the world approaches resource scarcity.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your point, MG. Are you saying that it's not economically feasible for every country to have nukes? Do you think that I want every country to have nukes? My preference would be global disarmament. If that's not going to happen, then its understandable that more countries are going to seek to level the field by getting their own. In any event, I don't like the US behaving as though it's our position to declare who gets them and who doesn't.
 
MildSteel said:
Those who want to rah rah Netanyahu when he visits should remember how he has deliberately disrespected our leaders when they have visited Israel. Consider



Biden's Israel visit takes a rocky turn - Los Angeles Times

So go and rah rah a guy who does not give a damn about what the U.S. thinks or is trying to do.
Click to expand...

And has been ginning up fear for Iran, declaring since at least 1992 that Iran is 3-5 years away from having a nuke.
 
MildSteel said:
Yep that's right, right after the Vice President proclaims his love for Israel and promises U.S. support, they spit right in his face. But still, people over here want to rah rah Netanyahu and invite him over to embarrass the President of the United States. Damn!!!!
Click to expand...
Instead of participating in the hijacking of your own thread, why not remain true to the question you posed in the OP ... "Can Iran's nuclear program be stopped by military force alone?"

Force is not the optimal solution, and it is all but impossible to erase such a competency via force alone. Force would retard Iran's nuclear progress, but not suppress it entirely. The only durable solution is willing cooperation and total transparency by the Iranian government. The global initiative here should be focused on Iranian nuclear-weapons procurement.
 
Simpleχity;1064347281 said:
Instead of participating in the hijacking of your own thread, why not remain true to the question you posed in the OP ... "Can Iran's nuclear program be stopped by military force alone?"

Force is not the optimal solution, and it is all but impossible to erase such a competency via force alone. Force would retard Iran's nuclear progress, but not suppress it entirely. The only durable solution is willing cooperation and total transparency by the Iranian government. The global initiative here should be focused on Iranian nuclear-weapons procurement.
Click to expand...

I agree with your conclusion.

That said, the discussion of Netanyahu is indeed relevant because Netanyahu wants to destroy the Obama's efforts to negotiate a deal with Iran concerning it's nuclear program.
 
MildSteel said:
I agree with your conclusion.
Click to expand...
Well ... it is the only rational conclusion.

MildSteel said:
That said, the discussion of Netanyahu is indeed relevant because Netanyahu wants to destroy the Obama's efforts to negotiate a deal with Iran concerning it's nuclear program.
Click to expand...
But you could always address that in a separate thread or poll without compromising this one. This topic initially had promise, but now it's pretty much FUBAR.
 
Montecresto said:
Not sure I understand your point, MG. Are you saying that it's not economically feasible for every country to have nukes? Do you think that I want every country to have nukes? My preference would be global disarmament. If that's not going to happen, then its understandable that more countries are going to seek to level the field by getting their own. In any event, I don't like the US behaving as though it's our position to declare who gets them and who doesn't.
Click to expand...

Total disarmament isn't possible either. I think you are underestimating the many shades of hatred that exist between peoples of different ethnicities and creeds in the world. As soon as one hegemonic power loses control over the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are thousands of politically significant right-wing factions that would aggressively pursue the use of, if not nuclear weapons (which not everyone can afford), other weapons of mass destruction. Like say, every nation in Africa or East Asia. The fact the United States and other Great Powers already possess an overwhelming nuclear advantage encourages nation states to seek advantage through diplomacy and economics, with minimal use of force and the threat of worse force featuring as a mere supplement to international relations.

While I'm not a dyed in the wool believer in Thomas Hobbes, he does articulately explain the advantages of concentrating all power in one person or entity. The risk of the United States having all the power is that the United States will abuse the power. However, since the United States' maintains its power through a globe spanning network of alliances and diplomatic connections, abusing power would result in the gradual loss of that power.

In contrast, sharing power gives everyone the opportunity to abuse power, which makes the incidence of conflict likelier. And once the conflict occurs, there is no central, overwhelmingly mighty authority that can put a lid on it, resulting in a WW1 scenario.
 
Morality Games said:
Total disarmament isn't possible either. I think you are underestimating the many shades of hatred that exist between peoples of different ethnicities and creeds in the world. As soon as one hegemonic power loses control over the proliferation of nuclear weapons, there are thousands of politically significant right-wing factions that would aggressively pursue the use of, if not nuclear weapons (which not everyone can afford), other weapons of mass destruction. Like say, every nation in Africa or East Asia. The fact the United States and other Great Powers already possess an overwhelming nuclear advantage encourages nation states to seek advantage through diplomacy and economics, with minimal use of force and the threat of worse force featuring as a mere supplement to international relations.

While I'm not a dyed in the wool believer in Thomas Hobbes, he does articulately explain the advantages of concentrating all power in one person or entity. The risk of the United States having all the power is that the United States will abuse the power. However, since the United States' maintains its power through a globe spanning network of alliances and diplomatic connections, abusing power would result in the gradual loss of that power.

In contrast, sharing power gives everyone the opportunity to abuse power, which makes the incidence of conflict likelier. And once the conflict occurs, there is no central, overwhelmingly mighty authority that can put a lid on it, resulting in a WW1 scenario.
Click to expand...

Seems like you're arguing that it's better if one country is supreme. And I won't ever buy that. I want to see a balance of power, sufficient that nobody is willing to attack the other, and! mind you, that if America wants to present itself as the "shinning city on the hill", the promoter of democracy, and the bastion of human rights for all, that we ACTUALLY do that!!
 
Simpleχity;1064347532 said:
But you could always address that in a separate thread or poll without compromising this one. This topic initially had promise, but now it's pretty much FUBAR.
Click to expand...

The topic has not been compromised as Netanyahu is a leading exponent of the school of thought that believes that violence is the solution. He is dangerous and his absurdity should be pointed out.
 
Montecresto said:
Seems like you're arguing that it's better if one country is supreme. And I won't ever buy that. I want to see a balance of power, sufficient that nobody is willing to attack the other, and! mind you, that if America wants to present itself as the "shinning city on the hill", the promoter of democracy, and the bastion of human rights for all, that we ACTUALLY do that!!
Click to expand...

... except its clear from all history and logic that the only condition where nobody is willing to attack the other is when one power rules supreme.

Balances of power in international relations are about as harmonious as the balance of power in American government. Except, instead of vetoes and filibusters we get war.
 
Morality Games said:
... except its clear from all history and logic that the only condition where nobody is willing to attack the other is when one power rules supreme.

Balances of power in international relations are about as harmonious as the balance of power in American government. Except, instead of vetoes and filibusters we get war.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, we're getting closer bud. One nation being the sole superpower doesn't comfort me, even if it's my own. I prefer that no nation thinks that they have carte Blanche. I'm glad that China is growing, and will eventually be able to back the US up, and I'm also glad that Russia has proved that they're not worried about US hegemony either.
 
MildSteel said:
The topic has not been compromised as Netanyahu is a leading exponent of the school of thought that believes that violence is the solution. He is dangerous and his absurdity should be pointed out.
Click to expand...
Well, if you want to hijack your own thread then that's up to you. What could have been a good discussion is fairly well ruined now.
 
Simpleχity;1064351156 said:
Well, if you want to hijack your own thread then that's up to you. What could have been a good discussion is fairly well ruined now.
Click to expand...

No, it's not ruined, unless you are a fan of Netanboohoo.
 
spangledbanner said:
I don't see why they can't have one. Israel has one. And Israel didn't ask anyone if they could make nukes. They just made them. And nobody knows how many they even have. Do they?

Why can't Iran have nukes? What is the big deal? If BB was really worried about it would he want all Jews in Europe to move to Israel? I doubt it. Nobody cares about Iran getting nukes. North Korea has them. Why would Iran having them be worse than North Korea or Pakistan. Normal people do not care about this issue at all.
Click to expand...

Huh ?

Iran ? A theocracy bent on driving Israel into the sea should be allowed to have Nukes ?

Thats not only ridiculous its irresponsible.
 
Fenton said:
A theocracy bent on driving Israel into the sea should be allowed to have Nukes ?
Click to expand...

HUH??? Israel??? What about U.S. interests? Do you care about that?

Israel can take care of itself.
 
Fenton said:
Huh ?

Iran ? A theocracy bent on driving Israel into the sea should be allowed to have Nukes ?

Thats not only ridiculous its irresponsible.
Click to expand...

No worries in any event. Both Israeli and US intelligence agencies say Iran isn't working on a nuclear weapons program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom