U2Edge
Gold Member
- Sep 15, 2012
- 5,275
- 1,199
- 130
The chances of a US supported Isreali war to get Iranian WMDs has just got less.
No War means no dead Americans in body bags.
Be thankful for Obama's second term.
Peace be upon the world.
So what are the chances that Iran will now get a nuclear weapon?
What are the consequences for the region and the world of Iran armed with nuclear weapons?
How many more states will attempt to get nuclear weapons once Iran has them?
What are the chances of the actual use of nuclear weapons with a greater number of nuclear weapons states whether the use was intended or accidental?
What type of casualties do you think the world would see with the detonation of nuclear weapons in one or more countries?
Yup. We all would like a world where only the US has the bomb. Just as the wheel technology spread around the world then the computer so will the bomb. Not that I want nut jobs in Russia, China or North Korea to get it but eventually technology spreads. The 67 year gap amazes me and has to be a testament to the CIA, Obama, Bush, Carter, all of them.
So saying what we want aside, what would you do as President?
Thanks to the efforts of the United States and its allies, many countries that have long had the capability to develop nuclear weapons have not done so. Non-proliferation efforts make the world a safer place. Most countries on the planet probably have the capability to make the mustard gas that was used for the first time on the battle field in 1915, but they don't.
So the simple spread of technology is no excuse for letting Iran or others obtain nuclear weapons.
Iran obtaining nuclear weapons or other WMD should not be feared as much as Saddam possessing such capabilities. Saddam was a proven international outlaw with his attacks and invasions of four neighboring countries and his annexation of Kuwait in 1990, the first annexation of another country since Adolf Hitler did so in the 1940s. Then there was Saddam's extensive use of WMD on the battlefield against other countries as well as against his own people. It was a great thing for the world that Saddam was removed from power in 2003.
Iran on the other hand has never been nearly as bold or bad as Saddam was in his relations with other countries. They have indeed had a far more conservative approach and to the degree that they have acted aggressively, they have only done so through proxy's like Hezbollah.
That being said, military action against Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power must remain an option. In this case it is hard to say whether the cost of military action would be more or less than the cost of no military action. Is it possible to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons without military action? Would military action prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Airstrikes might prevent Iran, at least temporarily, from obtaining nuclear weapons. But the only sure way military action could be effective would be through invasion and regime removal, a far more costly effort than airstrikes, and most likely a more costly effort than Iraq, given Iran's much larger size in both population and geography.
Mitt Romney and Obama's position on this is not very far apart despite what their compaigns and others would suggest. Both think that military action must remain an option for the United States in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
I'm not sure what the best course of action is in this particular case. Its more difficult to judge than the case with Saddam. I will say that the airstrike option, even if successful would only set Iran back about 4 years. But its easier for the President to launch and pay for airstrikes. An invasion is something that I don't think congress would approve of given the war fatigued public and the judgements about whether it would be worth it in this particular case or not. Obama has certainly ruled that option out given that he is cutting US active Army Combat brigades from 45 down to 32. But airstrikes are still on the table with Obama.
Ultimately, I think Obama is going to punt on this one and leave this question up to the next administration that will take office on January 20, 2017.
Last edited: