ISS: Teheran could have nukes in '09

[mRx 16]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

A nuclear war in the MENA would not be a "local conflict". Everyone has investments and alliances in that region.

But that doesn't mean that we need to involve ourselves. I understand that some powerful politicians and war-makers have investments and alliances in that region, but that doesn't confer that everyone has investments and alliances there. The Constitution, Congress, and our President are in place for the defense of the American People, not for their friends or investments in other countries.

It doesn't no, but isolationism shouldn't be promoted for its own sake.

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two different things.

[Yoink 7]

not in a nuclear conflict... no one is immune or truly isolated from the fall-out.... all puns intended

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

A nuclear war in the MENA would not be a "local conflict". Everyone has investments and alliances in that region.

But that doesn't mean that we need to involve ourselves. I understand that some powerful politicians and war-makers have investments and alliances in that region, but that doesn't confer that everyone has investments and alliances there. The Constitution, Congress, and our President are in place for the defense of the American People, not for their friends or investments in other countries.

It doesn't no, but isolationism shouldn't be promoted for its own sake.

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two different things.

The only difference between the two is economic policy.

There's no precedent for a nuclear based conflict - but its not exactly difficult to see how it would be impossible to remain neutral in such a situation.

[mRx 16]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

And what do you think the effects of a local nuclear conflict would be?

I don't know, local fallout?

But, seriously, if there are countries locally that would be effected by a nuclear attack, then wouldn't you think that those countries would act for their own survival?

Still, doesn't involve us.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

And what do you think the effects of a local nuclear conflict would be?

I don't know, local fallout?

But, seriously, if there are countries locally that would be effected by a nuclear attack, then wouldn't you think that those countries would act for their own survival?

Still, doesn't involve us.

Matt if you're going to push this angle - it makes more sense to do so in relation to regional territorial conflicts, and not unprecedented wars using WMD which will have clear and obvious impacts far beyond the intial site of trouble.

[Yoink 7]

Matt... you seriously don't believe in this day and age a country can detonate a nuclear device on anothers countries soil and expect countries to remain quiet?

SPecifically if Iran blows up Tel Aviv you think the USA will sit idly by?

[Ban Hammer 13,636]

not in a nuclear conflict... no one is immune or truly isolated from the fall-out.... all puns intended

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

[Yoink 7]

not in a nuclear conflict... no one is immune or truly isolated from the fall-out.... all puns intended

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

[mRx 16]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

A nuclear war in the MENA would not be a "local conflict". Everyone has investments and alliances in that region.

But that doesn't mean that we need to involve ourselves. I understand that some powerful politicians and war-makers have investments and alliances in that region, but that doesn't confer that everyone has investments and alliances there. The Constitution, Congress, and our President are in place for the defense of the American People, not for their friends or investments in other countries.

It doesn't no, but isolationism shouldn't be promoted for its own sake.

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two different things.

The only difference between the two is economic policy.

There's no precedent for a nuclear based conflict - but its not exactly difficult to see how it would be impossible to remain neutral in such a situation.

Economic relations are the only relations we should have with other nations.

(That ryhmed)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

A nuclear war in the MENA would not be a "local conflict". Everyone has investments and alliances in that region.

But that doesn't mean that we need to involve ourselves. I understand that some powerful politicians and war-makers have investments and alliances in that region, but that doesn't confer that everyone has investments and alliances there. The Constitution, Congress, and our President are in place for the defense of the American People, not for their friends or investments in other countries.

It doesn't no, but isolationism shouldn't be promoted for its own sake.

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two different things.

The only difference between the two is economic policy.

There's no precedent for a nuclear based conflict - but its not exactly difficult to see how it would be impossible to remain neutral in such a situation.

Economic relations are the only relations we should have with other nations.

(That ryhmed)

Well yes - but I rather doubt that you can separate the political dimension from that.

The funny thing is that I agree with you re: non-interventionism, but you're pushing it in relation to an example so extreme that neutrality is unrealistic.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Yoink 7]

why just economic relations?

besides that point.... in stayin with this topic's theme... A nuclear Iran is bad for Iran... because who would be terribly surprised if a even harder-line government too over, or a coup took place? It is bad for the Muslim world... it creates a Muslim superpower whom wages proxy wars against the west and will have even more influence to push around the Syrias and Pakistans etc... It is bad for the world...

All those reasons are more than justifiable than a war in Iraq...

[mRx 16]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

And what do you think the effects of a local nuclear conflict would be?

I don't know, local fallout?

But, seriously, if there are countries locally that would be effected by a nuclear attack, then wouldn't you think that those countries would act for their own survival?

Still, doesn't involve us.

Matt if you're going to push this angle - it makes more sense to do so in relation to regional territorial conflicts, and not unprecedented wars using WMD which will have clear and obvious impacts far beyond the intial site of trouble.

However many countries the "impact" spreads are however many countries should be involved. The specifics, as I see them, are irrelevant. Land disputes, invasions, bombings, even nuclear attacks, are only problems of those countries that are involved.

Now obviously if Iran threatened Mexico with air-burst nuclear ordinance, then of course, this effects us, and however many countries surround us. A congressional declaration of war would be warranted.

I currently don't know of any ordinance, that if detonated in Israel, would reach US soil.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

why just economic relations?

besides that point.... in stayin with this topic's theme... A nuclear Iran is bad for Iran... because who would be terribly surprised if a even harder-line government too over, or a coup took place? It is bad for the Muslim world... it creates a Muslim superpower whom wages proxy wars against the west and will have even more influence to push around the Syrias and Pakistans etc... It is bad for the world...

All those reasons are more than justifiable than a war in Iraq...

Not now they aren't. Global recession - the US Government is obligated to end the Iraq war as soon as possible, and GWB has so ruined the US' domestic and international reputation (not to mention the simple economic practicalities we find ourselves in) that opening up another war front (against a country rather more formidable than Saddam's Iraq) would likely push this country down a path of destitution from which it wouldn't soon recover.

If the Israelis want to do something about the situation, they're going to have to take it on themselves.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

And what do you think the effects of a local nuclear conflict would be?

I don't know, local fallout?

But, seriously, if there are countries locally that would be effected by a nuclear attack, then wouldn't you think that those countries would act for their own survival?

Still, doesn't involve us.

Matt if you're going to push this angle - it makes more sense to do so in relation to regional territorial conflicts, and not unprecedented wars using WMD which will have clear and obvious impacts far beyond the intial site of trouble.

However many countries the "impact" spreads are however many countries should be involved. The specifics, as I see them, are irrelevant. Land disputes, invasions, bombings, even nuclear attacks, are only problems of those countries that are involved.

Now obviously if Iran threatened Mexico with air-burst nuclear ordinance, then of course, this effects us, and however many countries surround us. A congressional declaration of war would be warranted.

I currently don't know of any ordinance, that if detonated in Israel, would reach US soil.

Presumably the rest of the world could reduce itself to radioactive slag, and the US would be entirely unaffected.

As I say - full scale nuclear war is a ridiculous example to push non-interventionism on. There's no precedent for it - and the threat posed to international security is such that its simply insane to dismiss it as a local problem.

[Yoink 7]

My point was simple... that an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel will illicit a US military response to Iran. PERIOD... there is no arguement even from you Paul that this won't happen