Man, I step away from the ol' blog for a day, and what do I get? A rash of the right-wing dingleberries. Come on, everyone, ignore them, they're nuts.
I do notice a few things, though. My post was about the concern that we would use nuclear weapons against Iran in an unprovoked attack. Read the wingnut comments, and what do we see?
- A great deal of pussyfooting around the issue. None are coming right out and saying that nuking Iran is justifiable. How about stating clearly that you agree that while Iran is a deplorable mess, you find the idea of using our nuclear arsenal against it indefensible? Maybe we all agree more than you think.
- Attacks on Seymour Hersh's credibility. OK, let's assume he's all wrong. Does that mean you think the idea of nuking Iran is insane and not something our government would do? Then please write to your congressman and tell them that you, a good Republican, want them to make sure that Crazy Liar Hersh's predictions don't come true.
- Bizarre, idiotic arguments that we're in favor of kissing Iranian butt. Enough said; that kind of stupidity doesn't even need to be answered, as it is simply ridiculous and requires a gross misreading of everything every reasonable liberal, left-wing person has said.
As for those demands that the Left needs to provide constructive solutions…did you people even read the Hersh article? He talks about the diplomatic solutions right there, all the stuff that the sensible people are proposing. As turnabout is fair play, what I'd really like to see is the right-wing solution that does not involve large bombs and tens of thousands of dead civilians. If anyone has a dearth of solutions in this situation, it's the knee-jerk warmongers.
- Log in to post comments
The problem with Iran is that they only have pygmies, not PYGMIES + DWARFS. That means they are unable to have FaithTM, and therefore must be 'sploded.
I think that nuclear wepons are as irrational as most Christians.
Granted, he did have that killer Bullshit ep. He probably thought he'd find like minds, and it turned out not all P&T fans think alike.
So sorry to disappoint TAJ. Wah.
I don't think the weapons THEMSELVES are irrational, but their use is.
Hersch is such a liar. I mean, that Abu Ghraib stuff never came to anything, right?
"what I'd really like to see is the right-wing solution that does not involve large bombs and tens of thousands of dead civilians."
Amen to that.
With this revalation, I think there is finally hope we're turning the corner away from darkeness and back toward the light, even Christopher Hitchens is getting sane and writes a presuasive argument for open-ness toward Iran instead of beligerence.
http://www.slate.com/id/2137560/
When you've lost His Hitchness, you truly are in trouble. Or more likely, out of booze.
Primate Note:
Star of screen, along with Johnny Weismuller and other, Cheetah celebrated his 74th (!!) birthday today.
I am happy for the ape, and it sounds as if he is well cared for. I know I won't see that age!
I'm sorry PZ, I saw his link on your thread and I visited him and linked the P&T: BS (via blogger) to Blondesense too. I had no idea he was a war-mongerer and I am hoping he doesn't show up on any other blogs. So much hate-filled venom can't be good for a person, either reading or typing it.
But still I am so happy and releived to see so many commentors taking the high road and sticking to the subject, definding themselves and their positions while continuing on with a sane and reasonable discussion and not lowering themselves to pointless mud-slinging and name calling.
Wondered where you'd got to. I was going to post a "Please don't feed the animals" sign, but had to go see to my fids--compulsively regular beasts that they are. Came back to find the poor ugly creature had slunk off. Gad, where do they come from?
We smote the dingleberries hip and thigh while you were gone, but they're not very good at listening.
Welcome back.
Come on, everyone, ignore them,
Well, since you won't take your own advice. . .
Iran is a disaster. And nuking them won't solve much, and certainly make things worse. . .not to mention the teeny problem of a clearly immoral action in using nuclear devices. That said. . .
As for Hersh's cred, well; do you agree with his assessment on JFK? (LINK: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002YECOE/sr=8-3/qid=1144635380/ref=p…)
If so, then perhaps a point can be made on his latest scoop.
Finally, while I may not say that you are kissing Iranian butt, I do see much on the Left that objects to saber rattling, which to some extent is necessary in this situation to insure that Ahmenidejad keeps himself under some sort of control. The lack of proper saber rattling did quite a bit to encourage what appears to be a like-minded demagogue some 70 years ago. . .and if you cannot see either the similarities to 1938, or think that anyone who criticizes the Left as soft on saber rattling on this is simply ridiculous and requires a gross misreading of everything every reasonable liberal, left-wing person has said., you are either outright delusional, or been spending too much time in the Echo Chamber.
PZ, out of curiosity, where did you learn the word "dingleberry" and what do you think it means?
(Says a former Iowan who lived not that far away from a certain Dingleberry Road.)
Liberals are delusional because they don't think Iran, with an economy that ranks somewhere between Thailand and Turkey, is an existential threat on the order of Nazi Germany, with the then second-largest economy and the strongest military in the world?
Color me unconvinced.
The crazy thing is that we actually have to defend a position of not using nuclear weapons. Sure, it would be good to have some constructive plans... but when someone seems to support using nukes by saying snottily "Do you have a better idea then?" in response to your having said "No, let's not..."
well, I'll just say that even if all you have is "no, let's not..." that IS a better idea. Startling that that's not just common sense.
"Your toilet won't stop running, I suggest we dynamite."
"um, no... let's not."
sorry if I'm not adding anything with this. everything is just so bewildering these days.
Liberals are delusional because they don't think Iran, with an economy that ranks somewhere between Thailand and Turkey, is an existential threat on the order of Nazi Germany, with the then second-largest economy and the strongest military in the world?
Well hey - if Iraq was, as Bush said, "the greatest single threat facing the United States," then the threat we now face from Iran must be huge in comparison!
Of course, it is the excessive "sabre-rattling" that convinces these states that they need to develop a nuclear arsenal to compete with ours (and Israels). I would love to read the argument that Iran is not acting rationally at this point. I am not defending them; I am just pointing out an aspect that I believe needs to be taken into account as we spout off about anhilating a large group of people (and then act shocked--shocked--that countries would actually resort to developing weaponry to (what they would see as) protect themselves from a very real threat--as demonstrated by our unprovoked invasion of Iraq). If it would be crazy for us not to develop both plans and weapons to use against a country that we see as posing a threat, the same can be said for that country in relation to us. It seems like rational escalation on both sides that can only be settled through peaceful negotiations or mass destruction. I would prefer negotiations.
Well, of course, nate... the signal we are sending is "if you don't have nuclear weapons, you'd damned well better get them fast before it's too late."
Do you really need a strong economy to build a nuke and launch it, though? I am not looking to cause uproar similar to the incredibly entertaining previous thread, just asking a question.
Sigh. The state of history education within the USA needs a review.
P Z Myers wrote:
Although an inveterate warmonger, what I would really like to see is a workable solution - not just wishful thinking - from either wing that does not involve large bombs and tens of thousands of civilian casualties - either in Iran or Israel. If it came to a choice, however, then Iran would have to be the target.
By all means try to reach some sort of accommodation with Ahmedinijad through diplomacy but be prepared for them to be about as successful as attempts to negotiate with Hitler once were.
As for sanctions, they might be effective, given enough time and assuming that none of the major powers or their client states attempt to circumvent them. But do we have enough time for them to work and can we rely on them being watertight?
If all else fails, though, then what is left but a military solution? Wild talk about "nuking" Iran conjures up images of mushroom clouds billowing up over Teheran. But that is not the same as using smaller tactical nuclear weapons to destroy underground facilities that cannot be reached by conventional high explosive. Even so, lobbing nuclear weapons - even those of the tactical variety - around an area as volatile as the Middle East is an incredibly dangerous proposition. They are weapons of absolute, final resort and I fervently hope they are being considered as such.
What I don't get is the fact that everyone is ignoring the hugest risk of all. You have a whole bunch of Americans sitting in Iraq right now and if you move them then there's going to be monumental chaos.
What precisely stops massive reprisals from Iran against the U.S. troops and citizens sitting in a country on their boarder? Especially if Iran has civilian martyrs of a botched U.S. bombing raid to put on placards to mobilise an unwilling populace(given the accuracy of previous U.S. bombing raids...).
I'd just like to add that only a few years ago, after decades of rule by ayatollahs, that country had a democratically-elected SECULARIST president. There was a powerful social movement to diminish the power of the Islamic fundamentalist clerics.
Guess what helped end it? Specifically: George W. Bush opening his stupid mouth and proclaiming the country part of the "Axis of Evil." The secularist movement was crippled, and the fundies gained even more power.
In a chess world, Bush plays a mean game of checkers.
...
In other news, formerly gutless and ineffectual White House lap dogs (also known as "Democrats") in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina and Vermont have begun asking Congress to pursue impeachment proceedings against Bush.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040906B.shtml
What I don't get is the fact that everyone is ignoring the hugest risk of all. You have a whole bunch of Americans sitting in Iraq right now and if you move them then there's going to be monumental chaos.
What precisely stops massive reprisals from Iran against the U.S. troops and citizens sitting in a country on their boarder? Especially if Iran has civilian martyrs of a botched U.S. bombing raid to put on placards to mobilise an unwilling populace(given the accuracy of previous U.S. bombing raids...).
PZ:
I cannot give the "right-wing solution" as I do not consider myself anywhere near right-wing (though close minded absolutists might count me as such because I don't march lock step with the left-wing, a pox on both extremes), but sometimes, unfortunately, the only solution does involve large bombs and dead civilians. If you believe otherwise you live in a fantasy world and are beyond reason.
I am not saying that this is necessarily going to be the case with Iran but it may unfortunately come to that.
It's pretty much up to the Iranian dictators.
To be clear I am not an advocate of the U.S. using nuclear weapons preemptively, I am talking about the strategic use of conventional weapons on Iranian nuclear facilities a la the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981.
I understand that those on the left do not like or trust Bush, neither do I, for a start I think his warrantless wiretapping is pretty much a treasonous attack on the Constitution, but as little as I like or trust Bush I like and trust even less some whack-job Ayatollahs and certainly do not expect them to negotiate honestly on anything that involves them giving up power (or potential power).
So what are we supposed to do? Fight His Majesty King George tooth and nail in an attempt to stall him till the Iranian Islamo-facists have nuclear weapons? The Democrats are powerless to do anything but foot-drag unless they can get enough power back in Congress to impeach His Majesty (President Cheney any one?), but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
I don't like it one bit but if it comes down to it I'd rather have dead Iranian civilians (from conventional weapons) in the near future than dead American civilians (from nuclear weapons) in the not too distant future.
The sad thing is, I wouldn't necessarilly be opposed to an ultimate limited conventional bombing campaign of Iranian weapons sites, coupled with an honest attempt at initial diplomatic solutions and non-military threats. The biggest stumbling block to finding the correct course of action, though, is that right-wing whackos feel the need to propose lobbing nukes into Iran, I have to point out that Iran is not Nazi Germany is not PYGMIES+DWARFS, and then my position is called delusional at best to treasonous and genocidal at worst. Iran is definitely a problem, a serious one that should be at the forefront of our foreign policy at that--it'd be nice if those in power and their cheerleaders would treat it as such instead of a game of Civ 2 where all problems can be solved by leveling a couple cities with nukes.
But that is not the same as using smaller tactical nuclear weapons to destroy underground facilities that cannot be reached by conventional high explosive.
The country that ushered in the nuclear age by becoming the only nation on earth ever to use nuclear weapons on another then becomes the only nation on earth SINCE the dawn of the nuclear age to use nuclear weapons on another... and why? Because that other nation was trying to get nuclear weapons, and those people might just be crazy enough to actually use them! Anyway, they were just tactical nukes, it's doesn't count, honest.
yeah, that will sell really well as we become the most despised nation on earth - despised by every other country and not just many of them... and as we once again show that other nations are wise to get nuclear weapons as soon as they can or else be defenseless against us and subject to our whims.
A workable solution? Try this...
1. Promise Iran that we will not invade them without UN authorization. It doesn't cost us much because an invasion would be unworkable. And if they did anything outrageous, we would get UN approval to respond. If you don't want to involve the UN, just make it that there has to be a congressional declaration of war. The point is to make it clear that we are not going to start a fight with them.
2. Tell Iran that if they do get nukes, they are the first retaliation target if any Islamic terrorist gets their hands on an atomic weapon regardless of association with Iran. In other words, shift the threat from something that is unworkable (air strikes) to something that is (retaliation).
3. If Iran still pursues nukes, tell every other country in the world that we will tax their imports to the US based on how much oil they buy from Iran. Europe would join us on this. That should get China's and India's attention -- and make it their problem as well.
4. Get off fossil fuels so they don't have money to work with. The collapse of the Soviet Union had as much to do with the global oil market as it did with Reagan's military buildup. A collapse in oil prices caused by a 20% reduction in worldwide demand would create more pressure for 'regime change' in Iran than anything else we could do.
The single biggest success/surpise of the last 50 years is that the Cold War never became hot. In fact, the places where it did get hot (Korea, Viet Nam) all caused much more trouble for the U.S. than the places were it did not (Poland, East Germany).
This is much closer to Stalin in the 50s than Hilter in the 30s. Remember, the current leaders in Iran and Stalin's Russia lived through a war with staggering costs. That kind of experience that permanently warps your view of the world. But it doesn't make you crazy like the grinding poverty and humilition of post-WW I Germany or current North Korea.
...
It worked with Russia.
It worked with China.
Give M.A.D. a chance.
I question the fact that nobody has even mentioned the possibility that if we use our nukes (even if it's just one tactical nuke) ... China and/or Russia might just decide they'd rather try to surprise us with a massive MAD-style nuclear strike.
Especially given the way Russia is drifting back to cold-war-era politics...
What about not slyly threatening Iran with invasion/military strikes/internal terrorism, which only increases a perception in Iran of the necessity of a nuclear deterrant.
What about then maybe admitting that, in order to have a remotely rational oppositional stance a nuclear-armed Iran, you need to first admit that America's parasitical failure-to-launch child,Israel, is the first and only middle-eastern country to have nuclear weapons. What about admitting that Israel hasn't even been pressured to sign the holy Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and, finally what about threatening to rip Israel from the U.S economic teat unless it comes to the disarmament table?
I mean, for fuck's sake, if Iran et al are really so insane that they'd use nukes on Israel and automatically provoke the inevitable massive U.S attack, do the Israeli nukes mean anything? Anything at all? What, are kosher nukes somehow more frightening to Iran than U.S nukes?
I think it's just the inevitable growing pains of any vibrant online community. No worries; it'll sort itself out.
..and while we're all practicing troll-ignoring, some of us might also want to reconsider automatically whipping out the always crowd-pleasing "pygmies + dwarfs" routine on every thread. I know, we have to have our clichés..but still.
Jim asked, "Do you really need a strong economy to build a nuke and launch it, though?"
I'm a physics person with some interest in nuclear history; if someone else knows more, please chime in.
Kind of depends on what you want. A dirty bomb, that is, a conventional bomb with radioactive material, is pretty cheap to build. Real nuclear bombs, fission bombs, are harder. They require a lot of power to build. During WWII, the US enriched uranium and produced plutonium in the Northwest where electrical power is cheap. The Nazi bomb program was set back tremendously when dams in Norway were destroyed, cutting them off from cheap power. Fusion bombs are tremendously more complicated, requiring mastery of fission bombs and the ability to focus x-rays.
Rocketry is also hard. Historically, countries develop medium and long range missiles well after they get nuclear capability. ICBMs require an order of magnitude more investment than that.
On the other hand, all this stuff gets easier all the time as more countries acquire the abilities and more of the technologies are available on the market.
So, I'd say that the broad answer to the question is that it does take a lot of capital to build even a simple nuke, but, with help from other countries and the willingness to use a lot of a country's GDP, it's possible for many countries. Building something like our ICBMs is not.
It's a little hard to understand why so many people seem to be threatened by the idea that Iran might someday get a bomb. We seem to have survived having the dread Communists get the bomb. We're even happy that India has the bomb, and we don't seem to be all that upset about Pakistan, even though (1) they seem to favor fundamentalist Sunni tendencies, supported the Taliban and even now may be harboring a certain notorious terrorist whose name is almost never invoked any more, and (2) they've been offering their bomb kit to anyone who'll pay for it.
And what about North Korea, which claim already to have weapons of mass destruction? Does no one want to attack them because they aren't Muslim, because they don't have oil, because they have too big an army, or because they already claim to have nukes?
I really do think that anyone who suggests the possibility of Muslim domination ought to be derided as a pantswetter. I used to say that about the fear of Communist domination, and events didn't prove me wrong.
Remember, though, that Ahmeniwhatsit is EVEN MORE INSANE than Geo. W. Shrub ......
That's whats' really scary.
That, and until the invasion of Iraq WITHOUT UN approval - "we" would have got it in another 6 months if Shrub hadn't been in such a damned hurry - the US and others could have said that "We dont go around invading other people without due process" - but now we can't, and Ahmeniwhatsit has his perfect excuse for his own nukes.
Like the Shrub, he obviously has no idea of the devastation thes things cause.
But, like Shrub, he's a religious loonie, and can't think straight anyway .....
4. Get off fossil fuels so they don't have money to work with.
Heh. Good luck with that. Strangely enough, though, that may actually the best way to get America to switch to renewable energies...
I'll just make one point. Compass said that, "The lack of proper saber rattling did quite a bit to encourage what appears to be a like-minded demagogue some 70 years ago. . ."
Now just assuming he's talking about Hitler and Nazi Germany here, I feel I must point out that France did actually move its army into Germany and occupy the Ruhr during the 1920's in order to make Germany comply with the conditions of the treaty of Versailles. It's hard to get more sabre rattlely than an actual occupation, but it actually turned out to be counter productive and only increased German zenophobia and cost France a lot of money. It also meant that no one was willing to try anything similar in the future, serverly weakening the effect of future attempts at sabre rattling. So I can't help but feel that interwar Germany just may have been better off with less sabre rattling and more constructive engagement. I'll leave it to the reader to draw any possible parallels between this and the current U.S. occupation of Iraq.
[[ He talks about the diplomatic solutions right there, all the stuff that the sensible people are proposing. ]]
Where Iran is concerned, "sensible diplomatic solutions" do not exist. They themselves have proven this with their strategy over the years. They've never taken seriously any of the European attempts at a diplomatic solution; they just use the negotiations as delaying tactics. I remain bewildered by the Left's ability to see with crystal clarity the threat posed by Christian fundamentalism, yet to go completely blind concerning the much greater threat posed by the far more radical, violent, and aggressive islamist fundamentalists armed with nuclear weapons. Does any of you seriously think that the DI and the ICR and their ilk would ever "negotiate" about creationism in good faith? That if we and they reached an agreement to let ID and only ID into school classrooms, that would satisfy them, and they'd stop demanding more? Of course it wouldn't. You know it, I know it. Why do you think the islamist fanatics are any more reasonable?
[[As turnabout is fair play, what I'd really like to see is the right-wing solution that does not involve large bombs and tens of thousands of dead civilians.]]
The solution that's allegedly been proposed, for one. No one is talking about using city-killer caliber thermonuclear weapons. The B61-11 referred to in the Hersh story is a "burrower" bunker-buster with a low-end yield of under a kiloton, specifically designed to burst underground and thereby destroy hardened underground facilities. Such weapons and strikes minimize collateral damage as a matter of course. On any other subject I'd expect better logic from scientists used to thinking analytically, but of course the leftwing mind is so ignorant of military matters and so rigidly conditioned to think "nuclear weapon automatically = total destruction within a twenty mile radius" that I don't really blame you for misunderstanding.
So, since nukes are off the table, I'll offer this instead: a coordinated attack by smartbombs and special forces that systematically eliminates the entire political leadership, both Ahmadinejad's hardline "civilian" government and the council of religious-fanatic mullahs that actually run the place. The guilty will suffer the punishment they deserve, and collateral deaths will be kept to a minimum.
Chuko, The problem with your analysis is that it presumes an effective and accurate nuke. We tend to gauge a nation's ability based on our latest development. Mounting even an elementary weapon on any rocket with the power and thrust to send it "x" miles in the general direction of your target is still a major threat. With the blast and radiation spread of even a dirty, inaccurate weapon significant damage can be done even if the rocket flies like a Buick. An additional threat is that Iran and a number of other "Axis" states don't need to build what they may be able to buy from an economically-strapped state near their borders. Even if they can only buy a "backpack" nuke from some disaffected military officer or bureaucrat with a yearning for an escape to the good life a lot of damage can be done. Last, "saber rattling" only works if you are prepared to draw the blade and use it AND the enemy knows that you are. Before we rattle we must decide if it is a bluff and the bluff is believable.
Re: "Tactical" nuclear weapons. I think I should point out that by today's standards, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs would both be tactical weapons. A tactical weapon could be anything up to 80 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb.
Hmmm. I notice that despite my request for solutions that don't involve throwing bombs at people, all the people who advocated bombs before are now just saying, "I'm sorry," before throwing bombs, or saying we'll just throw fewer bombs.
I'm not impressed.
The Hersh article does talk about the real hard work of diplomacy and negotiations. That's what we need to do -- it's not simplistic, and it makes for very poor TV, but you pro-bombing people have completely failed my challenge.
Seriously, try again. No bombs. Not even little smart bombs (which do tend to kill lots of civilians--please don't try this stupid tactic of pretending they'll only kill the bad people). Can you possibly come up with any solutions with this perfectly reasonable restriction?
Wolfwalker writes, "Where Iran is concerned, 'sensible diplomatic solutions' do not exist. They themselves have proven this with their strategy over the years."
What do you think Iranian strategy has been over the years?
"I remain bewildered by the Left's ability to see with crystal clarity the threat posed by Christian fundamentalism, yet to go completely blind concerning the much greater threat posed by the far more radical, violent, and aggressive islamist fundamentalists armed with nuclear weapons."
Balderdash. I cannot speak for "the Left," but liberals see perfectly well the threat from Islamic fundamentalism. You are the one whose glass is clouded by the present administration's crisis du jour. Here's a prediction for you: if an Islamic terrorist detonates a nuclear weapon in the next decade, it will come from Pakistan. You remember Pakistan? The home of the Taliban. The radical Islamic state that already has a nuclear arsenal. The protector of A Q Kahn, whose network traded nuclear technology with states such as North Korea and Libya.
Should we start bombing Islamabad?
And what about Saudi Arabia? It is the spiritual and financial home of the Wahabbi strain of Islam. Saudi Arabia funds the madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan that produced the Taliban, and that are still educating the next generation of jihadists. Next to Afghanistan, it is the government most responsible for 9/11. (They arguably deserve top billing.) Their views of Israel are not much different from the Shi'a in Iran. Rumor has it that they are seeking nuclear weapons. Do they get a pass because King Abdullah is kissing buddies with Bush?
I think the fundamentalist strains of Islam, both Sunni and Shia, are among the greatest risks facing the modern world. I hold, after the war in Afghanistan, that the US should have required Saudi Arabia to stand up to its share of responsibility for 9/11, and to change its state practices as a consequence. I believe that the Bush administration is not concerned with fundamentalist Islam, and that is why it has ignored the problem of Saudi Arabia, and has passed on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, to the extent that the new Islamic republic there is not much less radical than the old Taliban. And I see no reason to believe that the folks who are now running around screaming "Ahmadinejad! Ahmadinejad!" have any real concern or understanding of the problem fundamentalist Islam presents, rather than just being parrots, wittingly or not, for the right-wing grapevine. If the calls to bomb Iran because they might acquire nuclear weaponry were posed within a larger policy regarding Islamic fundamentalists -- some of whom already have nuclear weaponry! -- I would take those cries a bit more seriously. As things stand, the right in this nation is incapable of formulating serious policy regarding Islamic fundamentalism. It has a president who cannot speak a critical word about fundamentalism of any variety, and who is business partner and kissing buddy with the king of Saudi Arabia.
I do not rule out dropping bombs on people. Even nuclear bombs. I do rule out turning predictable developments into a crisis du jour, and reacting to those in knee-jerk fashion.
It is a matter of what do the US and Iran each have, to bargain with.
(US Sanctions against Iran : http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/108E16.htm )
Let us not pretend that we've given peace a chance, or that it is all Bush's fault or whatever.
There isn't going to be a nuclear bombing of Iran. Conventional bombing - yes, most probably this year.
Does any of you seriously think that the DI and the ICR and their ilk would ever "negotiate" about creationism in good faith? That if we and they reached an agreement to let ID and only ID into school classrooms, that would satisfy them, and they'd stop demanding more? Of course it wouldn't. You know it, I know it. Why do you think the islamist fanatics are any more reasonable?
Hey that's great, but we're not advocating bombing American fundies either. That's kind of the point of PZ's challenge: how we can "fight" these particular threats without bombing the crud out of them. Just because we on the left are leery of military force (seeing as how we've been so successful with that in Iraq) doesn't mean we don't think it's a threat that we should handle.
As others have pointed out, international pressure and diplomacy can work well. Threats of force can be powerful tools of diplomacy, yes, but the frightening thing about Hersh's article is that these are no empty threats: this administration simply wants war, and will accept nothing less. Just like in Iraq.
Iran once had a sizable secularist, progressive movement that we could have nurtured and encouraged into a much stronger, internal check on radical Islam -- but, sadly, Bush's mishandling of the Middle East ensured that they lost power and ended up marginalized. So maybe war is inevitable at this point: Bush sure seems to want it, and he made sure it was a self-fulfilling prophecy that Iran ended up in the "axis of evil".
Personally I find it abhorrent that people should die for Bush's incompetence and arrogance. Politically I think it's far better, and more lasting, for reform to come from within -- our military solutions in the Middle East have resulted in nothing but instability and resentment of the West, breeding more of the thing we claimed to want to end. It's time to consider that maybe bombing simply doesn't work against this sort of threat. How many fruitless wars will it take for that to penetrate your skulls? Perhaps someone can invent a "bunker buster" news delivery system that can penetrate the chickenhawks' invincible fortress of ignorance.
Here's the problem, PZ. Diplomacy only works if there's something that both sides want. I suppose the only possible "peaceful" solution would be to essentially bribe the Iranian government with enough foreign aid to make them abandon their nuclear program (which may well be only a small fraction of the money required to fight a war). But could a government that has defined itself as the enemy of the "Great Satan" afford to "sell out"? Wouldn't that be essentially signing their own death warrants at the hands of even more extreme fundamentalists that think the current Iranian government had become soft?
Could a government that had defined Iran as part of the axis of evil afford to "sell out"?
The fact is that over the last decade Iran has periodically sent out feelers for better relations, lifting of sanctions, etc., so it would seem a deal is possible. The problem, of course, is saving face on both sides. "Saving face" becomes harder the more heated the rhetoric becomes.
What I found amazing is that some people here talk with so much detachment of trowing nuclear devices on other people... it´s like they don´t see the dead, the burned, the cancer that will consume a lot of them... on the other side, as different as they are, there are people, with families, with children, with the things they like... sure, they have a terror regime, fanatics all over, and all that... but they´re not all like not, you could say that they´re ruled by the "vocal minority". So, if their government is the culprit, deal with the government. Leave the people alone. To see all iranians as crazy lunatics is the same as to see all americans as big fat individualists and religious dumbassses. Are all americans like that? Sure not. So why all iranians should be like that? Talk about then as people with lives. They´re not numbers.
Old, but perhaps worth reading:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-33.htm
"3. If Iran still pursues nukes, tell every other country in the world that we will tax their imports to the US based on how much oil they buy from Iran. Europe would join us on this. That should get China's and India's attention -- and make it their problem as well."
Why the f*ck should Europe join us? And for this to work, we'd basically need to take Iranian oil off of the world markt. Results are predictable.
For what it is worth. Hersch wrote the Samson Option regarding the development of nuclear weapons by Israel. If that is not the ultimate irony in addressing nuclear proliferation, nothing else is. It's interesting that this reporting enters the discussion, and no one noted the connection.
The thing to recall about Iran is that it was/is westernized. It is that segment of the population we must play to. Fail to consider that, as we did with Iraq, and the consequences will be similar--I'm of the mind the that the embargo after the first war is what hardened the society against us, and invasion just set its opposition to the US in place.
I think the appropriate solution is to prevent the importation of usable uranium; and to then just ignore them. As long as we can keep Shia unification under wraps--though I suspect ethnicity will prevent the Iraqi Shiites from politically aligning with the Persian Shiites. On this I would defer to the experts.
Mike
The only effective solution to the Iranian situation is to convince the Iranians they do not need nukes, and that it is in their best interests not to acquire them. We then wait for Democratic proccesses to undermine the Mullahs and moderate Iran. The majority of Iranians are not extremists, and they don't much like the Mullahs.
Bombing Iran is entirely counter-productive. It wounds Iranian pride, rallies even moderates behind the government, and makes it imperative for Iran to develop a bomb to defend itself against US agression.
The lesson of WWII is not more blustering and saber rattling. The lesson is not to lay the groundwork for future wars by imposing punitive and humiliating agreements on weaker nations, as the Treaty of Versailles most certainly did.
Nuclear proliferation is a lost cause. Countries are going to get nukes, and there's nothing we can do to stop that (can you say "North Korea"?). What we should be doing is trying to lay the foundation for reducing tensions and reducing the perceived need for nukes.
What I don't get is the fact that everyone is ignoring the hugest risk of all. You have a whole bunch of Americans sitting in Iraq right now and if you move them then there's going to be monumental chaos.
Anna--Good point. Probably why the Meatheads-in-Chief are toying with nuclear options: They figure it won't require many troops. (So they did learn something from from their previous invasion-planning mistakes.)
Of course, there's a good chance that our troops (in the country next door) would be affected by such a tactic. But you know all those WH staffers who insisted that the stop-loss program was okay because the possibility was obliquely alluded to in the fine print of enlistment papers ? And those VA administrators who pretended Agent Orange wasn't affecting Viet vets? They're all still making policy.
And as far as they're concerned, troopers' asses are grass. If the Bush WH does this genuinely evil thing, he doesn't merely--as he has been--weaken our military for years to come; he wipes it out entirely.
I love it when I get lectured that nukes aren't [i]that[/i] that bad and that I'm a hysterical left-winger when I am categorically against a nuclear preemptive strike.
The issue with nukes isn't megatonage (and, even as pointed out before, tactical nukes can be orders of magnitude higher in explosive power than Hiroshima's and Nagasaki's). It isn't even radiation and fallout that kills innocent civilians. It's the fact that nuclear weapons are the first class of weapons that could destroy civilization as we know it. Cross that line, and there'll be hell to pay.
It's also the reason, incidentally, that dealing with Iran is so important. Nukes are not merely dangerous but also something that should not be used in any circumstance, mkay, and anyone who says or even suggests otherwise--be it Iranian mullah or bloodthirsty right-winger--is an idiot.
BTW, Sy Hersh will be on Diane Rehm show on NPR tomorrow morning.
"Why the f*ck should Europe join us? And for this to work, we'd basically need to take Iranian oil off of the world markt. Results are predictable."
Because Europe doesn't want Iran to have nukes and they don't want us riding in like Cowboys and creating another mess. Europe would join us on taxing imports from China and India based on Iranian oil consumption because it is in their best interest to do so.
Making Iranian oil a non-competative source of energy is exactly how you take it off the market. It is exactly how you get China and India to engage on this. Try an embargo and see how well that works.
The problem that we are not acknowledging is that we are indirectly consuming Iranian oil and giving them the money to build nukes. We buy stuff from China made with oil from Iran. We can't stop the oil from flowing but we can control what it cost to get it into the US. We can estimate the economic value of doing business with Iran and make sure that it will cost the China business community a lot of money if Iran pursues its nuclear dream.
Iran may not be a democracy but, like every country, it has customers. Every business has to listen to its customers sooner or later. All I am suggesting is let market forces to the heavy lifting of taking Iranian oil off the market and getting the regime change.
...
There's a movement afoot in legal circles that involves one side or the other of a conflict actually apologizing for the harm done. Apparently this can be very affective at cooling the situation down and preventing vicious lawsuits.
It's a diplomatic tool to consider. Not a solution, no, but one of many useful tools that would help make things better.
One thing I keep imagining might help is for the next U.S. president to publicly and sincerely apologize to the world for the actions of George Bush.
...
And then maybe sell him to the highest bidder.
...
That's why the term "tactical nuke" is an oxymoron and another one of those Orwellian phrases that society sadly has come to accept.
From The Chicago Tribune's Washington Bureau:
The White House today is working to tamp down media reports over the weekend about contingency plans that the United States military could be making for a strike against Iran as "wild speculation.''
"We're pursuing a diplomatic solution,'' White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said of efforts by European leaders and the United Nations to avert the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. "Our focus is on finding a diplomatic situation.''
Is there a Downing Street memo for Iran as well?
Yeah, but who is going to be able to outbid Exxon/Mobile?
Here's the problem, PZ. Diplomacy only works if there's something that both sides want.
Well, might that be a limited understanding of diplomacy? Even the evil Russian communists, our sworn enemies who declared they would bury us, the great threat of the twentieth century that kept untold megatons of nuclear weapons poised for deployment, adversaries who we knew lied and connived at every opportunity and worked tirelessly for the day when we would be destroyed; even they we engaged on many occasions diplomatically because, even lacking common goals, there were things we agreed we didn't want.
Most of us have an amateurs view of diplomacy, and deride it because it speaks of appeasement, concession, and the great prelude to the collapse of negotiation leading to armed conflict. Is this accurate? Is diplomacy always a failure only resolved by resorting to war?
One of the problems in the arguments presented is that the premise is framed as already being at the endgame; Iran with nuclear weapons launching a jihad against the west even in the face of it's own certain annihilation. In the face of this what possible response can you offer? You either advocate massive proactive force or you are delusional.
One could suggest that if that's the premise you're arguing, you're playing the Red Queen's game.
So, backing up a step, we could argue where Iran is in it's development program. Some estimates suggest that they're several years away from being able to produce sufficient quantities of fissionable material of the quality needed to produce nuclear weapons. Responses?
Delivery capability seems to be an open question, with the only target of opportunity being Israel. And regarding Israel: From Steve Clemon's 'Washington Note' here's an interesting comment; " ...one of the take-aways from my recent Israel trip is that Israeli national security bureaucrats -- diplomats and generals -- have far greater confidence that there are numerous potential solutions to the growing Iran crisis short of bombing them in an invasive, hot attack.
One of the issues that came up in many of the national security related discussions I had was that Israel has maintained and cultivated a very strong human intelligence network inside Iran . The two nations were close strategic allies 25 years ago -- and continue, in many behind-the-scenes ways, to communicate and possibly even to coordinate certain actions. It doesn't mean that Israel is ready to appease Iran 's regional ambitions, but it does mean that I have witnessed far more worries about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust and anti-Israel rhetoric in the U.S. than I did in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem .
Many serious Iran watchers in Israel think that chances are relatively high that 'internal developments' will emerge in Iran to constrain Ahmadinejad's 'political options and political life.' "
You can also argue whether islamic fanatic fundamentalism is 100% the view of every muslim in the middle east and they all want us dead. If it's not 100%, what is the percentage? Are there any moderate muslims? If there are, is there a strategy we could pursue long term that decreases the influence of the fanatics and increases the influence of the moderates? Would bombing achieve short term tactical goals while permanently undermining long term strategic goals?
Anyone done a cost/benefit analysis on this one?
Now, those are interesting points of discussion...
Someone pointed out that the divide in Iran is generational. Ahmadinejad's generation grew up under the Shah & Savak. They are radical anti-American fundamentalists. The younger generation is much more moderate and tends to be pro-American (witness the massive rallies after 9/11 and the annual memorial rallies since then).
Time and the free flow of information will moderate Iran. The process was already well under way, when Bush set it back by years with anti-Iranian belligerence. Satellite dishes are outlawed in Iran, yet there is a very funny photo of Tehran showing that the roofs of the city are a forest of satellite dishes. Screw the oil. When Iran opens up, I want the cable TV concession.
whether using tactical nuclear weapons on Iranian targets is justifiable or not, it won't work. it will destroy the immediate targets, but it will give Iran and probably Syria and Pakistan all kinds of reasons to hate the West. what will the United States do then, nuke all of them?
now, i'm sure it will be controversial in this crowd, but i saw a role for using a tactical nuclear weapon of small magnitude at Tora Bora in Afghanistan against an al-Queda cell. it's a starkly unpopulated area. the target was directly connected to an attack against the continental United States, not just U.S. property someplace in the world. it could have been a demonstration that We Meant Business, and it would have been far better to do than invading Iraq.
it would have been sad it came to that, or do our standoff with Iran now. the cause is directly because the United States missed a huge chance at the end of the Cold War, and even towards its end, to double-time build down nuclear arsenals and demonstrate it was *serious* about nuclear disarmament. no. instead, a bunch of folks decided "we won the Cold War" and dreamed of empire and world domination on the part of the United States. *and* they propose and believe in "nuclear primacy" which i've writen about as a serious means of pursuing United States national security. to quote Straw, although i'm not sure *he* is sincere, This Is Nuts.
people need to understand what nuclear weapons can do. they are horrible. and they are in no way a usable military device, not in a conflict with significant casualties or anywhere near population centers.
chuko, shyster, unfortunately, it is no longer that difficult for any country to build their own fission weapon. it may be difficult for them to build one that can be missile mounted, but why would any of these countries want to do that, really? such a delivery device might be intercepted by anti-missile defenses, even theater ones. and its point of origin would be clearly identified.
the very scary and preferable means of delivery is cargo container on a container ship in a United States port city. containers are large, and there are generous weight limits. and it's easy to disavow any connection.
building a fission weapon is easier today because manufacturing technology of all kinds has gotten better, because there are sources of information (the Khan network) who will teach shortcuts, and because there are a lot of smart people in a lot of countries, not just the United States.
we really need to get over this American exceptionalism thing. remember during the Clinton administration when it was criticized for having "given away" advanced missile guidance technology to China? like China couldn't devise that themselves?
There's a movement afoot in legal circles that involves one side or the other of a conflict actually apologizing for the harm done.
Can you remember the last time the US apologized for something egregious?
Anyone else see striking similarities between the build-up to the tension with Iran and the build-up to WWII?
After WWI, the Treaty of Versailles required the dearmament of Germany and restitution payment to the Allies in WWI. This created economic depression and encouraged certain kinds of xenophobic rhetoric to spread. As a consequence, a crazy man came to power (Hitler) and decided to blame the problems on a convenient scapegoat (the Jews). Subsequently, the crazy man decided to ignore treaty provisions and not only rebuild but expand the military of Germany. WWII is largely a result of this.
Flashforward to Iran. US says, don't build-up your military and especially nuclear weapons. Next we say, economic sanctions will shove your economy into the cellar so you won't have the money to build nukes or any other significant military. Meanwhile in Iran, a more moderate government is replaced by a crazy guy (Ahmadinejad) who uses xenophobic (those Jews again) rhetoric to get the populace inflamed and begin military build-up including nuclear bombs.
The parallels are quite clear. When will world powers learn that forcing countries they don't like to disarm and dragging their economies into the cellar are not good ideas. A healthy economy mean jobs and food for lots of people. Jobs and food mean people are probably relatively happy. Happy people just don't start wars*.
*This is why I would argue Shrub is pretty unhappy. Or greed and power corrupt happy people. However you want to see it is fine with me.
It seems that when people are afraid they generally become religious and xenophobic. The parallels between Iran's political development and sudden plunge back into religious fanatacism precisely mirror the same changes in the US.
When people say the world changed on 9/11 they are correct. I don't think they realize what changed though.
Shyster - I think we're mostly in agreement. I'm not even sure what part of my post you're arguing with. You do agree that building medium range fission rockets is within the reach of many countries, even if it is expensive? Although I do imagine that building an ICBM is out of the range of most countries, I wasn't trying to imply that it was the only credible threat. I also wasn't addressing policy.
ekzept - you have several points I don't so much agree with. Anti-missile defense doesn't work now, and probably won't work for some time to come. This is pretty well established, I'm sure you can find some references. I don't know any way around the need for lots of electrical power to build a fission bomb. Countries that have acquired fission bombs spent time, money, and intellectual resources on them and tend to be proud of them. In a way, they should - it is a technical achievement, ignoring the political and moral issues.
Sure, it's easier if you don't have to put them on a rocket. Okay, but countries like Pakistan, India, and North Korea are working on improving rocketry presumedly because they think it's important for how a state uses nuclear weapons. So I do think rocketry is relevant.
As for American exceptionalism, I did say, "Building something like our ICBMs is not (possible for most countries)." Perhaps that was a bit glib - probably I should have said 'on a short timescale' or something. It is tremendously more difficult, and only a few countries have these weapons. Certainly a country has to acquire fission weapons first, and that's a fairly short list itself. I'm not sure that qualifies as American exceptionalism.
Anti-missile defense doesn't work now, and probably won't work for some time to come.
hi, chuko, i agree with a lot of what you say. but while national anti-missile defense a la "Star Wars" is a charade, so-called "theater defense" can work, especially if the adversary doesn't have the resources or the smarts to overwhelm it with sophisticated decoys.
i continue to bet on the container route, because of its looser constraints upon minimization.
Tht s sm nsprtnl stff. Nvr knw tht pnns cld b ths vrd. Thnks fr ll th nthssm t ffr sch hlpfl nfrmtn hr.