bmags Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 07:10 PM) "Using nuclear weapons on your own civilian opposition" doesn't seem like a practical strategy for holding on to a country. Deploying nuclear weapons against the Eastern part of his country might have prolongued his rule slightly, but it also would have destroyed it, since there's a whole lot of oil and economic resources in that area...and "Quadaffi nuked my parents" is probably a pretty good reason for you to lay down your arms if you're in the army. Nuclear weaponry would prevent a large, massed, Iraq-style invasion, but at some point we're all going to have to agree that would be completely nuts. I certainly didn't imply that he would deploy nukes on his own people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) I certainly didn't imply that he would deploy nukes on his own people. Then there's really very little method for him to deliver them. Can't hit the U.S. Navy off shore without damaging yourself and risking losing the weapon, and shipping them in terrorist methods to the U.S. seems like at the very least an arduous, multi-year process, not exactly the easiest combat tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Hey balta do me a favor and tell me how many countries with nuclear weapons we've conducted a multilateral attack on in the last century? How many countries without nuclear weapons have we attacked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:39 PM) Hey balta do me a favor and tell me how many countries with nuclear weapons we've conducted a multilateral attack on in the last century? How many countries without nuclear weapons have we attacked? Where would Libya deploy them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 How many have had internal populist uprisings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Nuclear-weapons-as-invasion-deterrence isn't where I'm taking exception, btw. It's that this lesson is learned from Libya instead of, say, Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:54 PM) Nuclear-weapons-as-invasion-deterrence isn't where I'm taking exception, btw. It's that this lesson is learned from Libya instead of, say, Iraq. There you go. Nuclear weapons prevent a massed, focused, large scale invasion. They may make airborne decisions much more complicated, but they do not necessarily prevent them if the country has no means to directly respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Are you being purposely obtuse? the development of nuclear weapons has been the strongest deterrent for attacks from other nations of the past century. If Libya had indeed continued to develop them in the 00s they would have been met with sanctions following the uprising but they most certainly would not have seen an airstrike against. Qaddafi was mad, and the airstrike was carried out by a number of countries. Libya didn't need to hit the US navy, or sell it to terrorists to smuggle into the united states or whatever other absolutely bizarre, albeit creative, scenarios you created, they could have merely threatened to use nuclear weapons against nearby states or allies. In what cost/benefit analysis do you see NATO going thru with an airstrike if it carried the potential of a nuclear attack. Would than not obliterate the argument that it was to protect human life. The nuclear weapon cannot be seen if not without the major deterrent effects it provides, in addition to respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 09:54 PM) Nuclear-weapons-as-invasion-deterrence isn't where I'm taking exception, btw. It's that this lesson is learned from Libya instead of, say, Iraq. Saddam Hussein refused to show his nuclear progress and was invaded. Ghadaffi cooperated, and as soon as he was weak, he was invaded. What benefit do you see in Iran cooperating? I don't understand that you don't believe these things can act concurrently. Iraq was an example of what happens when you don't cooperate, while libya when you do. Well, it turns out it doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:58 PM) Are you being purposely obtuse? the development of nuclear weapons has been the strongest deterrent for attacks from other nations of the past century. If Libya had indeed continued to develop them in the 00s they would have been met with sanctions following the uprising but they most certainly would not have seen an airstrike against. Qaddafi was mad, and the airstrike was carried out by a number of countries. Libya didn't need to hit the US navy, or sell it to terrorists to smuggle into the united states or whatever other absolutely bizarre, albeit creative, scenarios you created, they could have merely threatened to use nuclear weapons against nearby states or allies. In what cost/benefit analysis do you see NATO going thru with an airstrike if it carried the potential of a nuclear attack. Would than not obliterate the argument that it was to protect human life. The nuclear weapon cannot be seen if not without the major deterrent effects it provides, in addition to respect. What nearby states or allies did Libya have the ability to actually threaten? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:01 PM) Saddam Hussein refused to show his nuclear progress and was invaded. Ghadaffi cooperated, and as soon as he was weak, he was invaded. What benefit do you see in Iran cooperating? I don't understand that you don't believe these things can act concurrently. Iraq was an example of what happens when you don't cooperate, while libya when you do. Well, it turns out it doesn't matter. Iraq openly cooperated with inspections prior to the invasion and nothing was found. Iraq was invaded for a variety of transparently-dumb-at-the-time reasons. If they really had nuclear weapons and the world knew, they probably wouldn't have been invaded. Libya was "invaded" once a massive internal revolution was well-underway with several cities taken by rebel forces. If they had nuclear weapons and threatened e.g. Italy with retaliation if NATO got involved, yeah, that would definitely have an impact on the decision to support the rebels. If they had nuclear weapons but it was becoming apparent that they were losing control of them, that introduces an entirely different dynamic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 11:05 PM) What nearby states or allies did Libya have the ability to actually threaten? Do you have a map? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 11:09 PM) Iraq openly cooperated with inspections prior to the invasion and nothing was found. Iraq was invaded for a variety of transparently-dumb-at-the-time reasons. If they really had nuclear weapons and the world knew, they probably wouldn't have been invaded. Libya was "invaded" once a massive internal revolution was well-underway with several cities taken by rebel forces. If they had nuclear weapons and threatened e.g. Italy with retaliation if NATO got involved, yeah, that would definitely have an impact on the decision to support the rebels. If they had nuclear weapons but it was becoming apparent that they were losing control of them, that introduces an entirely different dynamic. Indeed, it seems that we are willing to invade a country we don't like when the opportunity presents itself. Everything I've read has stated that the lesson iran has taken from this is that the mistakes made by both these countries is not that gave up their program or kept it, but rather that they just weren't successful in finishing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:15 PM) Do you have a map? As of 2002, Libya only had SCUDs and no projected ability to develop ICBM's. Which leaves their maximum realistic range at 200km, which means they're limited to Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad and Egypt. And not realistically any major cities in those countries, save Tunisia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) Indeed, it seems that we are willing to invade a country we don't like when the opportunity presents itself. Everything I've read has stated that the lesson iran has taken from this is that the mistakes made by both these countries is not that gave up their program or kept it, but rather that they just weren't successful in finishing it. I'm not willing to grant that we actually invaded Libya. Can you address my concern re: losing control of nuclear weapons during an internal revolt? edit: we could also invade the s*** outta Iran right now and decimate their government and military if we wanted to. Continuing to advance their nuclear programs only increases the odds that Israel or the US will eventually put a stop to that before it is too late. We don't want the proof to be a mushroom cloud, as George W. Bush so wisely stated. Edited January 5, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 We aided a revolt with air power, which the rebels were not capable of. But at what point would you say that Libya was at the point it could have lost control of their nuclear arsenal? Especially if in tripoli? It was at least 4-5 months after the airstrikes began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 04:33 PM) We aided a revolt with air power, which the rebels were not capable of. But at what point would you say that Libya was at the point it could have lost control of their nuclear arsenal? Especially if in tripoli? It was at least 4-5 months after the airstrikes began. You would have to be really stupid to locate all of your weapons in a central position in your country's capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 wow. i'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 05:44 PM) wow. i'm done. Why? It's pretty easily conceivable that you'd spread your weapons around your country, and they lost control of quite a bit of their country. I'm not saying that what you're saying re:deterrence is dumb or wrong, but that something like Libya brings up extra factors to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 If I was Iran, I would definitely try to get nukes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 5, 2012 -> 07:28 PM) If I was Iran, I would definitely try to get nukes +2 You are a player as soon as you have one and the ability to send it somewhere. People answer your calls, return your messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Being a nuclear scientist in Iran appears to be a very hazardous job. No special insight, but I'm guessing Mossad, u? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Not sure how you could honestly distinguish this sort of act from terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) Not sure how you could honestly distinguish this sort of act from terrorism. If it is against you, it is terrorism. If it is by you, it is asymetrical warfare. You say potato, I say potaaaato.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) If it is against you, it is terrorism. If it is by you, it is asymetrical warfare. You say potato, I say potaaaato.... It's straight-up terrorism. Just like "enhanced interrogation" is straight-up torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts