Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • It all boils down to this

    Posted by ken on February 2nd, 2006 (All posts by )

    If Iran had nuclear weapons and couldn’t be invaded, can y’all think of any reason why terrorists wouldn’t get support from the regime for staging conventional attacks on the Great Satan?

    The world already saw our lack of nuclear retaliation for 9/11, and our reluctance to go looking for Osama bin Laden in nuclear-armed Pakistan. A nuclear-armed Iranian regime wouldn’t have to be all that crazy to think they could get away with sponsoring more conventional attacks once they’ve got their nuclear umbrella.

     

    8 Responses to “It all boils down to this”

    1. Sulaiman Says:

      We can then equally hire “good terrorists” to threaten and attack the Iranian regime from within. And the pool to hire from is quite big too.

    2. Lex Says:

      What Sulaiman said. If the nuclear level is checked, and the conventional level is checked, if we had to come into armed conflict with Iran, we would do it at the level of subversion and sabotage. We need to develop these capabilities. I hope that the Army is paying special attention to recruiting Farsi speaking Americans for precisely this purpose.

    3. Lex Says:

      Furthermore, if we were credibly threatening to attack them, what incentive would they have not to act first with as much Hell-raising as they could come up with? If they have nothing to lose, we will find out how much damage they can do, because they will no longer have any incentive not to do it.

    4. Ken Says:

      “Furthermore, if we were credibly threatening to attack them, what incentive would they have not to act first with as much Hell-raising as they could come up with? ”

      Other than the fact that Iranian Hell-raising would decrease opposition within America to an invasion, none at all.

      “If they have nothing to lose, we will find out how much damage they can do, because they will no longer have any incentive not to do it. ”

      Which is exactly the situation they’ll be in once they have the bomb.

      “If the nuclear level is checked, and the conventional level is checked, if we had to come into armed conflict with Iran, we would do it at the level of subversion and sabotage. We need to develop these capabilities.”

      But we won’t until the time comes to actually use them. How would our people practice them?

      I guess the best thing to do is to have our people practice them, right now, against Iran before they get the bomb. And gear up for an invasion as well. We’ll let invasion be Plan B in that case. A highly likely Plan B, in my opinion.

      Which will bump “let the wackos get nukes and then completely lock down our society when they start setting off regular bombs over here” down to at least Plan C.

    5. Sulaiman Says:

      Plenty of Farsi speaking folks – and even with the Iranian dialect – to the East of Iranian border. I only hope the US military is paying attention to these returing Afghan refugees who were treated like third class citizens by Iran and are jobless (and restless) inside their own country.

      What I don’t understand is “we-don’t-have-the-military-capacity-to-attack-Iran”. Our choice is here between bad (military action) and far far worse (private nukes in the hands of religious bigots). Not every military action needs to end up in an occupation. The US airpower is sitting idly doing nothing since Saddam was sent to retirement and a PUNITIVE military expedition with so much US military assets around Iran should not even be a logistical nightmare. All the US has to “occupy” is nuclear sites after a Sherman-like march through the power base of the clerical regime. And the US military will get plenty of intelligence from the locals. True, oil prices might go through the roof as long as uncertainty hangs over markets. However, blockade of oil shipments is more destructive to the mullahs than to us. Negotiation with those who only understand the logic of force is interpreted as a sign of weakness.

    6. Shannon Love Says:

      Iran will never have a nuclear umbrella. Their are many contingencies in which nukes will be totally useless. Iran will not be able use nukes to retaliate in the case of airstrikes, blockade, externally supported civil war etc.

      The only way that Iran can use nukes legitimately is in the case of massive ground invasion and that will almost certainly never happen. The geographical and political conditions of Iran make a ground invasion nearly impossible. Military action against Iran will take the same form as that in Afghanistan with external forces taking sides in a civil war.

      I believe that nukes will become more of curse than a blessing to the Mullahs. The will suddenly find themselves having to match their actions to their swagger but doing so will be suicide.

    7. Ken Says:

      “Iran will never have a nuclear umbrella. Their are many contingencies in which nukes will be totally useless. Iran will not be able use nukes to retaliate in the case of airstrikes, blockade, externally supported civil war etc. ”

      Assuming they can get a bomb someplace we consider important, they can threaten to use nuclear retaliation anytime the alternative is their own removal from power, trial, and execution. An actual nuclear exchange wouldn’t be much worse from their point of view.

    8. j.scott barnard Says:

      Shannon, you said: ” external forces taking sides in a civil war. ”

      And who would be their Northern Alliance?

      Thanks. –scott