A New Policy To Replace MAD

[NATO AIR]

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF .........

Iran gets the nuclear weapons its leadership so badly wants (and the Iranian people want nuclear weaponary as well, not just for nationalist reasons and national pride, but for the place among nations it awards them..... something we as Americans often fail to understand.... look at India and Pakistan, how much widespread celebration across political lines there was when they successfuly tested their nukes in 98).

I propose a new policy for America.

It goes as this:

If a nuclear terrorist attack occurs on American soil, interests or allies and the US cannot tie that terrorist attack to an organization or nation within a short amount of time....

The following nuclear capable nations will face nuclear strikes from American forces in response:

Iran
(whomever else wants and gets nukes that is our enemy... North Korea, Syria, etc)

This also applies towards chemical and biological attacks on US citizens, forces, interests and allies.

This is "kind of" policy already, but if Iran gets its nukes, then we need to state it clearly and make sure the Russians and Chinese know what we intend to do if we are attacked with these weapons by a country like Iran or an organization like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. Because, let's be honest, if the Russians or Chinese were assaulted with nukes, they would do the exact same thing, and be far more ruthless and thorough in their response.

 

[Annie]

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF .........

Iran gets the nuclear weapons its leadership so badly wants (and the Iranian people want nuclear weaponary as well, not just for nationalist reasons and national pride, but for the place among nations it awards them..... something we as Americans often fail to understand.... look at India and Pakistan, how much widespread celebration across political lines there was when they successfuly tested their nukes in 98).

I propose a new policy for America.

It goes as this:

If a nuclear terrorist attack occurs on American soil, interests or allies and the US cannot tie that terrorist attack to an organization or nation within a short amount of time....

The following nuclear capable nations will face nuclear strikes from American forces in response:

Iran
(whomever else wants and gets nukes that is our enemy... North Korea, Syria, etc)

This also applies towards chemical and biological attacks on US citizens, forces, interests and allies.

This is "kind of" policy already, but if Iran gets its nukes, then we need to state it clearly and make sure the Russians and Chinese know what we intend to do if we are attacked with these weapons by a country like Iran or an organization like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. Because, let's be honest, if the Russians or Chinese were assaulted with nukes, they would do the exact same thing, and be far more ruthless and thorough in their response.

So, we wait to be attacked, then turn them to glass. Very enlightened policy. Welcome to 21st C.

 

[dilloduck]

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF .........

Iran gets the nuclear weapons its leadership so badly wants (and the Iranian people want nuclear weaponary as well, not just for nationalist reasons and national pride, but for the place among nations it awards them..... something we as Americans often fail to understand.... look at India and Pakistan, how much widespread celebration across political lines there was when they successfuly tested their nukes in 98).

I propose a new policy for America.

It goes as this:

If a nuclear terrorist attack occurs on American soil, interests or allies and the US cannot tie that terrorist attack to an organization or nation within a short amount of time....

The following nuclear capable nations will face nuclear strikes from American forces in response:

Iran
(whomever else wants and gets nukes that is our enemy... North Korea, Syria, etc)

This also applies towards chemical and biological attacks on US citizens, forces, interests and allies.

This is "kind of" policy already, but if Iran gets its nukes, then we need to state it clearly and make sure the Russians and Chinese know what we intend to do if we are attacked with these weapons by a country like Iran or an organization like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. Because, let's be honest, if the Russians or Chinese were assaulted with nukes, they would do the exact same thing, and be far more ruthless and thorough in their response.

So any country who wanted Iran nuked would just have to launch a terrorist attack in the US ? That's some pretty questionable foreign policy.

 

[NATO AIR]

So any country who wanted Iran nuked would just have to launch a terrorist attack in the US ? That's some pretty questionable foreign policy.

How would America respond if NYC was nuked this morning?

If it was Al-Qaeda, how do you think we would or could respond?

Would we use nukes against Pakistan's border areas? The Somali hinterlands? Khartoum? Tehran?

The only other option is to do nothing. Because these people are not "states" with hard targets. They hide in the shadows, recieve tacit and sometimes serious support from nations like Iran and Syria, and depend on sympathetic elements within governments like Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and China for heads-up and hands-on assistance with matters like bio/chem weapons and nuclear materials.

We have to be ruthless. We have to consider again the probability of punitive expeditions against our enemies. We have to understand the kind of world we live in. Again, how do you think Russia, China, or crap, even France would respond if they were attacked by jihadists with nukes?

This is not the happy 21st century you were all misled into believing. This is not even the dark era of shadows you thought 9/11 ushered in. This is a world where even if we use military strikes against Iran, it will only be a matter of time afterwards for them to get their nukes. They've gotten and continue to recieve direct assistance from Russia, China, Pakistan, etc. We cannot stop it. It is inevitable. Unless you change the strategic calculus, which this administration, indeed, this populace, is unwilling and unable to do anyway.

 

[Annie]

How would America respond if NYC was nuked this morning?

If it was Al-Qaeda, how do you think we would or could respond?

Would we use nukes against Pakistan's border areas? The Somali hinterlands? Khartoum? Tehran?

The only other option is to do nothing. Because these people are not "states" with hard targets. They hide in the shadows, recieve tacit and sometimes serious support from nations like Iran and Syria, and depend on sympathetic elements within governments like Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and China for heads-up and hands-on assistance with matters like bio/chem weapons and nuclear materials.

We have to be ruthless. We have to consider again the probability of punitive expeditions against our enemies. We have to understand the kind of world we live in. Again, how do you think Russia, China, or crap, even France would respond if they were attacked by jihadists with nukes?

This is not the happy 21st century you were all misled into believing. This is not even the dark era of shadows you thought 9/11 ushered in. This is a world where even if we use military strikes against Iran, it will only be a matter of time afterwards for them to get their nukes. They've gotten and continue to recieve direct assistance from Russia, China, Pakistan, etc. We cannot stop it. It is inevitable. Unless you change the strategic calculus, which this administration, indeed, this populace, is unwilling and unable to do anyway.

We'd attack all who aided and abetted, though it would be too late for those in Manhattan and environs. Others would attempt to retaliate, welcome to the new dark ages.

 

[dilloduck]

We'd attack all who aided and abetted, though it would be too late for those in Manhattan and environs. Others would attempt to retaliate, welcome to the new dark ages.

If we nuked all who have in some way collaborated, there will be no one left to enjoy the dark ages. Why do you think there call it MAD ?

 

[Annie]

If we nuked all who have in some way collaborated, there will be no one left to enjoy the dark ages. Why do you think there call it MAD ?

There no longer is 'mutual.'

 

[dilloduck]

There no longer is 'mutual.'

Are you saying that the US would be the only country launching nukes ?

 

[Annie]

Are you saying that the US would be the only country launching nukes ?

No.

 

[NATO AIR]

Simply put, we're in a very bad no-win situation.

The only relatively best bad option we have is to topple the government with a short campaign aimed at killing the leadership and the worst of the security services, then leave the Iranians behind to clean up the mess, albeit with US aid if they so desire.

A short campaign focused on toppling the regime would be a get in, get out in less than 4 weeks. ZERO occupation or nation-building. The nation is already built, its just the state security appartaus and clerical theocrats are the problem.

 

[Annie]

Simply put, we're in a very bad no-win situation.

The only relatively best bad option we have is to topple the government with a short campaign aimed at killing the leadership and the worst of the security services, then leave the Iranians behind to clean up the mess, albeit with US aid if they so desire.

A short campaign focused on toppling the regime would be a get in, get out in less than 4 weeks. ZERO occupation or nation-building. The nation is already built, its just the state security appartaus and clerical theocrats are the problem.

I agree that something must be done about Iran, yet as your earlier post pointed out, they are not the first, nor likely the last to want to go nuclear. That genie is out of the bottle and no putting her back. Problem is, like Iran today or an Iraq under Hussein or a bin Laden, these are folks that would use them and have no problem that we would respond.

That was the whole point of MAD, both sides did care to some degree, about their people surviving.

 

[NATO AIR]

I agree that something must be done about Iran, yet as your earlier post pointed out, they are not the first, nor likely the last to want to go nuclear. That genie is out of the bottle and no putting her back. Problem is, like Iran today or an Iraq under Hussein or a bin Laden, these are folks that would use them and have no problem that we would respond.

That was the whole point of MAD, both sides did care to some degree, about their people surviving.

Like Peters noted, a "punitive expedition"

We need to relearn that great tactic from the British Empire of the 19th century and before.

It is less an imperial form of campaign than a necessary tactic of survival and security for us.

 

[Annie]

Like Peters noted, a "punitive expedition"

We need to relearn that great tactic from the British Empire of the 19th century and before.

It is less an imperial form of campaign than a necessary tactic of survival and security for us.

Exactly, which is why I'm unsure of why we would wait until AFTER an attack.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm unsure that a nuclear pre-emtive strike is wise----I'm not convinced that ANY nuclear warfare is wise. To this day there is still some question as to if the nuclear bombing of Japan was what really motivated the surrender. Some feel as if the Japanese felt that it was wiser to surrender to the US than suffer invasion from elsewhere.

 

[pegwinn]

I don't personally approve of pre-emptive strikes. I really dislike the idea of targeting and trashing someplace and then finding out we were wrong. Ooops just doesn't cut it.

But I really, really, really don't approve of allowing an attack on us first. I, by nature, am not a turn the other cheek guy.

So if I gotta pick one, we are rolling the dice on pre-emptive strikes and hoping for the best.

If they attack us, well then all bets are off. We follow the punitive theory and leave them in ruins without assistance.

Just my two cents.

(just for the record, I am agreeing with Kath on not waiting, and to a degree with NATO's take out the leaders and security approach)

 

[Annie]

I don't personally approve of pre-emptive strikes. I really dislike the idea of targeting and trashing someplace and then finding out we were wrong. Ooops just doesn't cut it.

But I really, really, really don't approve of allowing an attack on us first. I, by nature, am not a turn the other cheek guy.

So if I gotta pick one, we are rolling the dice on pre-emptive strikes and hoping for the best.

If they attack us, well then all bets are off. We follow the punitive theory and leave them in ruins without assistance.

Just my two cents.

(just for the record, I am agreeing with Kath on not waiting, and to a degree with NATO's take out the leaders and security approach)

I'm with you Pegwinn, with that said, I don't think nukes would be our weapon of first choice. I'm not sure why Dillo would assume that.