NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, a lot has been going back and forth on the Atlantic wargames thread, and what I originally meant to say has bee distorted and altered so much that I think I need to make a few things clear in why I was advocating what I did. So, new situation, new thread. This is how I was trying to put the situation


Given:

1. Iran has become hostile to all potential negotiators, there is no chance of peaceful resolution. Assume for a minute that all negotiations between the US/Europe/Iran and any other potential players have fallen through. Iran has become openly hostile to all parties and is intent on escalation.

2. Iran has an ICBM and has the will to use it. Iran has now built an atomic bomb and mounted it on an intercontinental ballistic missile. It is capable of hitting anywhere in the US, Europe, or the Middle East. Iran has also made it known that they can and will use the weapon.

3. The Population of Iran is hostile to foreign action. The mass population of Iran is in support of the President and his moves to escalate to a conflict. The general consensus is along the lines of the "wipe Israel off the map" and "imagine a world without the US" comments.

4.US intelligence has no idea where the warhead is located. The weapon could be anywhere. It could be in Tehran, it could be hiding in a farmhouse. The US has not and cannot locate the weapon for strategic destruction. At any moment, Iran could fire it off and the US would not know where it came from until launch.


With those four givens, would you exercise the nuclear mongol option on Iran?


That is how I originally intended my statements, but they grew out of proportion as the debate went on.

Situation 2:

Osama bin Laden and his 10 top aids are having a meeting to discuss future attacks on the US and Western Europe. Intelligence knows when and where this meeting is, and no Al Queda member has been tipped off that we know. Unfortunatly, the meeting is taking place on the ground floor of a school which has 500 children in class. Do you bomb the school in order to kill Osama and his aids?

Situation 1. Do nothing. If they launch sucessfully they will be vapourised. The Iranian President is the leader of a country, not Victor Von Doom. The people in charge of launching the missile will know they will die if it is launched, so even if the President gives the order there is a good chance that it will result in a bullet induced stroke in the President's brain.

Situation 2. Of course not! The reason we are the good guys is we don't kill children, got it? And you can't say it would save more innocent lives. When you kill 500 school children countries declare war on you and in wars lots of people die. Also, how can you convince people not to resort to terrorism when democractic countries blow up schools?

Situation 1. Do nothing. If they launch sucessfully they will be vapourised. The Iranian President is the leader of a country, not Victor Von Doom. The people in charge of launching the missile will know they will die if it is launched, so even if the President gives the order there is a good chance that it will result in a bullet induced stroke in the President's brain.

Fair enough. Thats probably a good assesment of the world's reaction.

Situation 2. Of course not! The reason we are the good guys is we don't kill children, got it? And you can't say it would save more innocent lives. When you kill 500 school children countries declare war on you and in wars lots of people die. Also, how can you convince people not to resort to terrorism when democractic countries blow up schools?

We didn't declare war on Russia when they had the whole school incident. No one declared war on the US when it blew up civlian targets in Iraq over the past decade. Hell, Europe and China didn't even bother to try and condemn us for using Nukes on Japan or any of the firebombing that we did. No one did that to the US during Korea or Vietnam either. You can kill lots of civilians and no one will bat an eye.

What the case is here is the idea of greater good. Would you sacrifice 500 children to save the world from another London Subway incident or from another 9/11, or from another Madrid bombing?

1) I think Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons but if they start pushing there luck just finish the star wars programme and continue laughing at them behind a convenient shield

2) of course not even if we kill the whole of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group someone will just take there place so I don't think its worth killing children for revenge

1. If you launch a nuclear attack against a nuclear power then they will retaliate ie. Iran's nuke will be heading towards the largest city of the attacking country. The best option would be to station planes and missle that can intercept the missle between Iran and the target. If Iran does does it's nuke then conventially bomb all atomic processing facilities and government infrastructure. Nuking Iran would be considered genocide seeing as they contain a specific ethnic group and the vast majority of all Shia Muslims (something like 80% of the world total). And even if 'the population' is sympathetic to hostile action that doesn't mean everyone is, just a simple majority.

2. I think you don't understand the structure of terrorist cells. However if it did happen that Al Qaida was operating like a military organisation then I still wouldn't bomb him. Instead all I would do is listen in. Kill 500 kids and Osama or be visibly be seen to stop a terrorist attack through use of intelligence. One has a benefit and major negative, and the other is just a major positive.

What the case is here is the idea of greater good. Would you sacrifice 500 children to save the world from another London Subway incident or from another 9/11, or from another Madrid bombing?Well if you look at the case of the London bombings - 500 school children or 56 people (including the 4 bombers).

Situation 1. Do nothing. If they launch sucessfully they will be vapourised. The Iranian President is the leader of a country, not Victor Von Doom. The people in charge of launching the missile will know they will die if it is launched, so even if the President gives the order there is a good chance that it will result in a bullet induced stroke in the President's brain.

Situation 2. Of course not! The reason we are the good guys is we don't kill children, got it? And you can't say it would save more innocent lives. When you kill 500 school children countries declare war on you and in wars lots of people die. Also, how can you convince people not to resort to terrorism when democractic countries blow up schools?

couldn't put it better myself.

1) I think Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons but if they start pushing there luck just finish the star wars programme and continue laughing at them behind a convenient shield


Why do you think they can be trusted? Iran is the last coutry on earth I would trust with a nuclear weapon. Islamic fundamentalists cannot be trusted because they do not care about self preservation. mutually assured destruction is irrelevant to suicide bombers, they would happily die to kill the rest of us, at least the psychos incharge would.

For situation 1, conventional warfare and have all the nukes ready to launch in case things get ugly. Since you stated the Iranians obviously intend to step up to a conflict, it's going to come anyway, and it would probably be sensible to hit them before they can build more nukes.
For situation 2, couldn't we just send a special forces team in? We pretty much knew the location of Osama before, in the mountains of Afghanistan, and we bombed the hell out of it but he got away.

What the case is here is the idea of greater good. Would you sacrifice 500 children to save the world from another London Subway incident or from another 9/11, or from another Madrid bombing?

Kill five hundred children to prevent an attack which only caused seventy deaths? Hmmmm.

Why do you think they can be trusted? Iran is the last coutry on earth I would trust with a nuclear weapon. Islamic fundamentalists cannot be trusted because they do not care about self preservation. mutually assured destruction is irrelevant to suicide bombers, they would happily die to kill the rest of us, at least the psychos incharge would.
Nah, the President of Iran cares very much for self-preservation. He's a politician, after all. He knows he will never use a nuke, even if he had one.

We didn't declare war on Russia when they had the whole school incident.
Huh? I thought we were talking about like the U.S. killing 500 children in another country? Russia destroyed Chechnia. Chechians turned to terrorism and killed school children. Sort of supports my point about it not being worth it. Europe and China didn't even bother to try and condemn us for using Nukes on Japan or any of the firebombing that we did.
Already at war with the countries bombed at that point. What the case is here is the idea of greater good. Would you sacrifice 500 children to save the world from another London Subway incident or from another 9/11, or from another Madrid bombing?
No. Less than 500 people died in the London bombings and the Madrid bombing. You can argue that it would be worth it for the 3,000 people killed in the 9/11 mass murder, but the fact of the matter is that you will never have a situation where you can prevent a terrorist attack by blowing up a school full of children. Anyone who did such an act should get life imprisionment. Of course if by some bizarre freak of chance I was put in a situation were I could save 3,000 innocents by killing 500 innocents, perhaps I would do it, but then I would expect to go to jail for murder. Perhaps if the evidence shows that I actually did save thousands of lives I might be shown some leniency, but it should still be an illegal act, otherwise it's too easy for school children to be killed on the basis of faulty intelligence.

Why do you think they can be trusted? Iran is the last coutry on earth I would trust with a nuclear weapon. Islamic fundamentalists cannot be trusted because they do not care about self preservation. mutually assured destruction is irrelevant to suicide bombers, they would happily die to kill the rest of us, at least the psychos incharge would.

what kind of tin pot country do you think Iran is more to the point what kind of tin pot religion do you think Islam is?