previous post next post  

MAD Iran: Who Dies First?

By Kat on May 28, 2008 | | Comments (10)

[Kat]

There is a question that keeps being asked that, to me, is asking the wrong questions and getting the wrong answers. The question is, can we live with a nuclear Iran?

The real question that should be asked, isn't whether we can live with it, but who are we going to let die?

We have never learned the right lessons from the Cold War. In fact, calling it the "Cold War" is probably the worst thing we ever did. It wasn't really "cold". Millions of people died as a direct and indirect result of this conflict.

What did Nuclear MAD do during the Cold War? It didn't stop war. It simply kept the US and the USSR from exchanging nuclear ICBMs and, possibly, invading each other's country. That is important, but it didn't keep either country from continuing to reach its stated objectives or from seeking ways to diminish or destroy their opponent. It simply changed the strategies and the venues of actual war.

Iran is a beneficiary of those years. It certainly learned important lessons about how to conduct war without being directly involved or held accountable for their actions. Both the United States and the USSR funded political coups and supported guerrillas or, inversely, supported state governments against guerrillas in order to counter the influence and power of the other within a region. The end objective being to reduce political power of the opponent and gain economic power through those relations.

Iran has been doing that for three decades by funding Hezbollah, Hamas and various terrorist organizations and activities through out the region as well as occasional activities across the globe. Including currently funding Shia insurgents in Iraq, al Qaeda elements, Taliban and various other organizations in the last two decades that have directly attacked US citizens or US forces. Thousands of people have died as a result of their activities.

Now, imagine a nuclear Iran. Today, Iran does have to contend with the question of whether they will suffer military intervention if any of their actions or those of their proxies are deemed too egregious. In fact, one can consider their more recent actions to be a test of how far they can go without reaping the consequences.

Under a nuclear Iran, the type of activities that they could support without seeing direct consequences would increase ten fold and so would the number of people who would die due to these actions. When Iran has a nuclear bomb, who is going to stop them? Their actions would then have to be extremely horrific and direct state to state against the United States and/or one of its allies in order for some sort of action to be considered against it.

They'd have much more room to grow their extra-national activities. A lot of people are going to die.

So, my question to all those who want to consider whether we can live with a nuclear Iran:

Who are we going to let die while we learn to live with it?

Share This Article:

Categories:

10 Comments

By Argent on May 28, 2008 3:20 AM
The short answer: I vote for the bin laden ladies because then we'll get all that rubbish melted down for free. PS. Nobody need understand my humour. Most of the time i don't either. The long answer: Ok. This is a completely open question post with no solutions given. I can't say I like the writing here it's so vague as to be like tarot readings. I do like the point of a nuclear Iran being empowered to do more mischief. All nuclear nations get and do this it's one of the reasons for the recent rush to join the club. However, let us begin at the beginning. Why is the first question wrong? Why is this new question right? Most specifically lay out the hidden assumptions and evidence behind them. For example your question has the hidden assumption people will die. Who will die? Why is it a requirement? Why is this an accepted state? It also has the assumption it will be allowed by 'we'. Who are 'we'? The US? The West? The US Army? What do you mean by who? Iranians or Americans? Are there other options? Show how there are options on who 'we' choose to allow to die.
 
By ry on May 28, 2008 5:52 AM
Point of order for either Brab the Adjutant or Armorer to resolve before I respond: is counter-demagoguery within the Rulez? [Yes. As long as it's polite and to the point.]
 
By Jason on May 28, 2008 9:18 AM
Kat, this post is even less coherent than your usual diatribes. You ought to remember that some of the millions of dead you talk about are Iranians who lost their lives against Iraq in the 1980s - you remember, when the US govt supported Iraq with weapons and intelligence estimates and "wheat shipments" that supported Iraq's WMD program. OF COURSE Iran is going to develop any and all capabilities that will enable them to stop a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war. Can we live with a nuclear Iran? Of course we can, since we've found out (over time) that Pakistan and India haven't nuked each other (despite their old rivalries), but at the same time, people still die in fighting over the Kashmir province. Russia has nukes, hasn't stopped the killing in Chechnya province. Yes, the Cold War stopped a direct nation-against-nation superpower fight, but the fight moved to proxy battles in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. What a surprise, there's always a fight going on somewhere. You want to stabilize the Middle East despite the presence of two nuclear powers (Israel and Iran)? Easy. You do the same thing as we did in SE Asia and Central America (that is, after we lost in the fight for "hearts and minds"). You invest in the government's ability to take care of its people. To wit, if we better supported Lebanon and facilitated an agreement between Syria and Israel, Hezbolla would be set back. But that would mean telling the Israel hawks in Congress to STFU and do something for the greater good. Good people always die as a result of someone's activities. It's the way of life. How many Americans will die in Iraq while the Bush administration fiddles? The meter is still running.
 
By kat-missouri on May 28, 2008 10:45 AM
J...so, I make less sense than ever before, but you some how can craft a couple paragraph response? Hmmm... Per my reading of you, people die anyway, so what are we worried about? I suppose, I could use your same logic and ask why we don't just go in and knock off Iran anyway. I mean, people die, right? Today? tomorrow? what difference does it make?
 
By kat-missouri on May 28, 2008 11:57 AM
Why is this new question right? Most specifically lay out the hidden assumptions and evidence behind them. For example your question has the hidden assumption people will die. Who will die?
I think that my point was, people are already dying under the auspices of a non-nuclear Iran supporting terrorists organizations from Lebanon to Afghanistan. But, they will die in greater numbers because the cover of a nuclear weapon would allow Iran to step up its game, provide more and heavier weapons, money and training. Largely because currently they have to be concerned with going "too far". That "too far" is actually lower on scale than if they have a nuclear weapon. Then, as with the types of intervention the USSR committed in other nations, when they have a nuclear weapon, that escalation point moves much further up the scale, thus providing them the opportunity or space to provide much more destructive capabilities to their proxies. This allows for a full blown escalation of war in the areas that they wish to affect. Leading directly to even greater death.
Why is it a requirement?
As I noted with the US and the USSR, the objectives don't change even with Nuclear MAD. Iran does have some very specific objectives in mind in regards to dominating the region and the energy resources there. That has not changed in several decades, but the advent of a nuclear Iran makes that definitely and, possibly, instantly achievable. However, people in the region are not just going to lie down and let Iran have at it. Further, it is going to want to consolidate certain gains immediately in Lebanon and Iraq in order to bring about their arch of control that is politically, militarily and economically important to control the region. Finally, instability in other nations, with Iran as the instigator, supporter and arbiter, provides Iran with significant political power. That certainly occurs now, but it still has limitations because Iran is as vulnerable as the next nation without nuclear weapons. On that score, I think we have know that the United States is not going to sit back and let a hostile power dominate a vitally important region that could have a long term impact on our economic future. Possibly our ability to exist. Finally, because they can. When Iran can kill whoever opposes them without fearing the same sort of repercussions they could feel today, I believe they will. They certainly have shown in the past that they have little compunction about doing so. Nuclear weapons gives them that much more cover to do it. In the end, that is why I believe that many more people will die under a nuclear Iran. Not only because it makes some sense in relation to their national objectives, but also because I believe they are an evil regime that certainly has no problem imprisoning and killing its own dissidents to stay in power. So I hardly see where, under nuclear weapons, they would have any reason not to do the same to anyoe else.
It also has the assumption it will be allowed by 'we'. Who are 'we'? The US? The West? The US Army?
I wonder why you ask that question? "We" is anyone who stands by and does nothing. You, me, national governments, etc. You're confused by that?
 
By Grumpy on May 28, 2008 12:24 PM
Kat, you have taken the courage to examine your beliefs. Not only to do this privately, but publicly. Good for you! Argent, you belittle the very act of raising a valid question. I refuse to act like a parrot. She is right to ask the question, not necessarily because it is wrong, but for the generations to come. Learn one thing, there are no free choices. No matter what choice we make, there will be consequences, this is the reason to KNOW why! We should know what are the considered reasons for an action, but equally so, the reason for NOT taking an action. Politics is NOT a reason! There are three branches of the Executive Branch which are not to be political, they are Military, Intelligence and Justice. The future will show the core of the man and his honor. POTUS took an oath of office in relation to The U.S. Constitution. There is more than than the document itself and the Amendments to be considered. It could be very interesting. Kat, THANK YOU, Grumpy
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 28, 2008 4:01 PM
Grumpy - I think Argent was examining structural weaknesses in Kat's post and possibly her thinking, certainly legitimate fodder which will help Kat refine her thinking and her message. It's all good. I'm doing the same thing with a response that Ry is putting together - for the same purpose. Ry just prefers to get smacked around in the dungeon rather than be performance art in the Great Hall...
 
By kat-missouri on May 28, 2008 5:50 PM
You know what's funny? I actually had a super long post with all the why's and where fors and then I though, "The Armorer says to leave room for the commenters to comment" so I tossed everything out and just put up the succinct: what happens when nations get nuclear weapons even if they don't use them - people die and in great numbers. Sometimes, you can't win for losing.
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 28, 2008 6:32 PM
No, what you do is build modular posts... that you can post sequentially, that answer the questions, and can thus drag the story out, with lots of entertaining commentary, and simultaneously feed the blog-beast. In other words - you're doing it right. Now, you respond. The point is to get people to engage - that sharpens your argument...
 
By Argent on May 28, 2008 7:16 PM
Thanks for the clarification Kat. I hope you don't think I was picking on you. I see little to disagree with in this context. And this proliferation is not unique to Iran it will be more widespread and that means the US may be spread a bit thin and that Iran will have other players to worry about besides the US. So more good and bad I guess. Grumpy i have no qualms of anyone here being negative on me. I came amongst the conservatives to learn with that base expectation and it's been delivered plenty. The fact your talking is more positive than the usual silence. However, do not think I belittle the act of raising a question. It's a valid question and it was my view it was not clear enough what the question meant, at least to me and possibly others. Most of what Kat writes I agree with or at least believe is excellent writing. ie a worthy argument. I do not make a habit of belittling Kat, she's smarter and infinitely more popular than I am so I know if i slip up i can quite easily get smacked around. Even if Kat wasn't I do not make a habit of belittling anyone.