The Iran War

You know, and all this hootin' and hollerin' is about Iran enriching uranium to 20%.

This is normal concentration for reactor use. It has nothing to do with weapons. You need better than 90% enrichment to build a bomb, and that's very expensive and very difficult. There's a reason why they talk about the Manhattan Project in hushed tones. This stuff is hard.

Further, we have signed a treaty with Iran that explicitly says they have the inalienable right to pursue nuclear power for civilian purposes. Inalienable right. It's in the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty. That is absolutely as strong as treaty language gets.

Now, if they were at, say, 40%, then I'd be getting worried. But 20% is just for normal reactor usage. And yes, they'll get a little bit of plutonium that way, but then they have to enrich that too, which is a separate, also very difficult problem. I think plutonium enrichment is a little easier than uranium, because you don't have the 'dud isotopes' that you have to filter out, but in the concentrations they're going to be generating, it'll still be expensive, difficult, and obvious if they're trying to build a plutonium bomb.

From everything I can see, exactly like with Iraq, this is not really about nuclear weapons. There's no public evidence of a weapon program at all. I very strongly suspect that our government doesn't really believe Iran is trying for nuclear weapons, it's just an excuse they're using. I'm not as certain about this as I was with Iraq, but given their past track record, and their absolutely deliberate falsification of information to go to war with that country, I'm not inclined to believe mostly the same bureaucrats that we need to be going after Iran now.

What I believe the real motivation is: they're stealing our oil right out from under their own feet. And they have the absolute gall not to be cringingly subservient to both the US and Israel. That just can't be tolerated.

So, basically, we're just inventing rules from nothing, and breaking an explicit treaty doing so, in order to justify an attack on Iran. There's no public evidence of weapons programs, and everything they are accused of doing they are explicitly allowed to do by treaty.

It's not about the rule of law anymore, this is just the US waving its dick around, and a subservient press that refuses to call them on it, out of fear of 'losing access'.

This is a spectacular piece of idiocy.

NathanialG wrote:

This is a spectacular piece of idiocy.

Now now, I think he might have a very effective strategy there. Just one American solider moved into an Iraqi city at "Literally the speed of light" would completely pacify it. Mostly by the city no longer being there but why nitpick.

NathanialG wrote:

This is a spectacular piece of idiocy.

There's too much stupid there to effectively take apart. The use of "literally the speed of light" alone made my head hurt. I really need to quit watching the republican debate coverage.

Iran has developed transporter beam technology.

I wish one of the moderators went Big Bang Theory on him and asked him to clarify how he would literally send troops there at 186,000 miles per second while taking into account the inherent paradox of requiring an infinite amount of energy to do so. How would you rewrite the laws of physics, Rick Perry? HOW WOULD YOU DO IT?

Chairman_Mao wrote:

I wish one of the moderators went Big Bang Theory on him and asked him to clarify how he would literally send troops there at 186,000 miles per second while taking into account the inherent paradox of requiring an infinite amount of energy to do so. How would you rewrite the laws of physics, Rick Perry? HOW WOULD YOU DO IT?

Well, he has three steps, but can't remember the third.

He'll get back to you on it.

Another Iranian car blows up: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-1...

No war time U.S. President has been voted out of office. Just saying...

Meanwhile, the U.S. government keeps making public statements that are completely untrue.

"This step once again demonstrates the Iranian regime's blatant disregard for its responsibilities and that the country's growing isolation is self-inflicted," Clinton said in a statement after Iran's announcement it had started enrichment in the Fordow mountain bunker complex.

I wonder how many people actually know where Iran is geographically.

US rescues Iranian sailors...again

According to the Navy's account, at about 3 a.m. local time an American Coast Guard patrol boat in the north Persian Gulf was hailed by flares and flashlights from an Iranian cargo ship whose engine room was flooding. Six Iranians were rescued from the ship, fed halal meals in accordance with Islamic law, and later taken to shore.
Sparhawk wrote:

I wonder how many Americans actually know where Iran is geographically.

I imagine this one would be significantly lower.

93_confirmed wrote:

US rescues Iranian sailors...again

According to the Navy's account, at about 3 a.m. local time an American Coast Guard patrol boat in the north Persian Gulf was hailed by flares and flashlights from an Iranian cargo ship whose engine room was flooding. Six Iranians were rescued from the ship, fed halal meals in accordance with Islamic law, and later taken to shore.

Quick question. Am I the only one that thinks it's weird that the Coast Guard is patrolling in the Persian Gulf?

On, and there's this.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/11/more_murder_of_iranian_scientists_still_terrorism/

Laws only apply to the other side.

I'm less concerned with the legality/illegality of the assassinations (and yes, they are the textbook definitions of terrorism btw) than I am with how mystified I am with how these acts fit in with anything resembling an overall strategy. They seem tremendously unlikely to result in disabling Iran's ability to develop a nuclear capability (if they are even pursuing one) and are even less likely to dissuade them from pursuing such a path. Additionally, they serve as excellent propaganda fodder to legitimize the current government and provide concrete evidence of hostile American intentions.

It just seems like a clear cut case of "ready, fire, aim" to me.

Interesting how Iran plotting to kill the Saudi Ambassador on US soil is bad while the assassination of Iranian scientists on Iranian soil by Israel and/or US agents is okay. Double standard much?

93_confirmed wrote:

Interesting how Iran plotting to kill the Saudi Ambassador on US soil is bad while the assassination of Iranian scientists on Iranian soil by Israel and/or US agents is okay. Double standard much?

We have nukes. We're entitled to a double standard. That's why nukes are so attractive.

93_confirmed wrote:

Interesting how Iran plotting to kill the Saudi Ambassador on US soil is bad while the assassination of Iranian scientists on Iranian soil by Israel and/or US agents is okay. Double standard much?

Nope--ambassadors do diplomacy while scientists do science. Diplomacy gets treated differently than just about anything else when it comes to warfare.

Paleocon wrote:

I'm less concerned with the legality/illegality of the assassinations (and yes, they are the textbook definitions of terrorism btw)

I don't think they are. Terrorism is about, well, terror as an integral part of the operation from planning to goal. Killing scientists to stop a country from accomplishing a scientific goal is not terrorism because it doesn't work by means of terror. It works by means of preventing them from accomplishing their goal--you can't do science when you're dead. However wrong or illegal it is, it's not terrorism.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I'm less concerned with the legality/illegality of the assassinations (and yes, they are the textbook definitions of terrorism btw)

I don't think they are. Terrorism is about, well, terror as an integral part of the operation from planning to goal. Killing scientists to stop a country from accomplishing a scientific goal is not terrorism because it doesn't work by means of terror. It works by means of preventing them from accomplishing their goal--you can't do science when you're dead. However wrong or illegal it is, it's not terrorism.

By that measure, the attacks of 9-11 were not technically "terrorism".

Paleocon wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I'm less concerned with the legality/illegality of the assassinations (and yes, they are the textbook definitions of terrorism btw)

I don't think they are. Terrorism is about, well, terror as an integral part of the operation from planning to goal. Killing scientists to stop a country from accomplishing a scientific goal is not terrorism because it doesn't work by means of terror. It works by means of preventing them from accomplishing their goal--you can't do science when you're dead. However wrong or illegal it is, it's not terrorism.

By that measure, the attacks of 9-11 were not technically "terrorism".

You're going to have a hard time showing how the Twin Towers were as integral a part of putting infidel boots on the holy ground of Saudi Arabia as nuclear scientists are to a nuclear program.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I'm less concerned with the legality/illegality of the assassinations (and yes, they are the textbook definitions of terrorism btw)

I don't think they are. Terrorism is about, well, terror as an integral part of the operation from planning to goal. Killing scientists to stop a country from accomplishing a scientific goal is not terrorism because it doesn't work by means of terror. It works by means of preventing them from accomplishing their goal--you can't do science when you're dead. However wrong or illegal it is, it's not terrorism.

There's always more scientists though. Except that now they're terrified about getting blown up themselves so they decide not to participate.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I'm less concerned with the legality/illegality of the assassinations (and yes, they are the textbook definitions of terrorism btw)

I don't think they are. Terrorism is about, well, terror as an integral part of the operation from planning to goal. Killing scientists to stop a country from accomplishing a scientific goal is not terrorism because it doesn't work by means of terror. It works by means of preventing them from accomplishing their goal--you can't do science when you're dead. However wrong or illegal it is, it's not terrorism.

There's always more scientists though. Except that now they're terrified about getting blown up themselves so they decide not to participate.

My understanding is that a nuclear weapons program isn't just some high school chemistry teacher's meth lab. You can't just go find another scientist. There are a limited number of these kinds of scientists.

Besides, with that broad of a definition, all war would be terrorism: you can always go find another solider, too. I'm not saying this isn't a really difficult debate, where terrorism ends and...let's just say non-terroristic combat begins, but calling the killing of nuclear scientists in order to prevent a nuclear weapons program from succeeding "terrorism" pretty much renders that word meaningless.

Calling assassination in general "terrorism" certainly does not render the word meaningless, regardless of who it is getting assassinated. (Assassination may or may not be terrorism--that's a valid thing to argue about. But this is certainly assassination, and you can certainly *make* an argument that any assassination is terrorism without "diluting" the concept of terrorism. You can also make some pretty good arguments that assassination is a vile tactic without bringing terrorism into it at all. And you can make additional arguments that assassination of civilians is more vile than assassination of military personnel.)

Hypatian wrote:

Calling assassination in general "terrorism" certainly does not render the word meaningless, regardless of who it is getting assassinated. (Assassination may or may not be terrorism--that's a valid thing to argue about. But this is certainly assassination, and you can certainly *make* an argument that any assassination is terrorism without "diluting" the concept of terrorism.

I disagree. While I agree this is assassination, I don't think you can make (obvious caveat that I mean you can make the argument but it won't be a convincing one) those arguments you're talking about.

You can also make some pretty good arguments that assassination is a vile tactic without bringing terrorism into it at all. And you can make additional arguments that assassination of civilians is more vile than assassination of military personnel.)

I'd pretty much agree with this.

*sigh* Would you at least agree that assassination can be used for the purpose of inciting terror? I will grant on the other side that there are reasonable military uses for assassination outside of that. (Decapitation strikes on the opposing leadership.)

The next question is this: is secret assassination of a civilian target by an agent of an unknown power during his daily commute likely to incite terror? Are there ways the objective could have been been achieved without inciting as much terror? If this began happening regularly, would it incite terror?

And is the incitement of terror in the populace the real defining property of "terrorism"? Does it have to be the intent of acts, or can it be a side effect? What if the side effect is intended? etc. etc. Lots of very fine lines here. That's essentially what I meant about "you can make an argument for it." I think you can make a compelling one, depending on how the people involved are defining terrorism.

I tend to think of it in terms of asymmetric warfare: striking without allowing a counter-strike. And assassination certainly fits there. In this case, it's almost certainly a nation that did it instead of a small paramilitary organization--and instead of "we'll tell you who we are, but you can't hit us because you don't know where we are!" it's "you don't know for certain who it was, so you can't hit back." The goal is the same: trying to get away with murder because nobody can touch you for it.

I would argue that if it's not terrorism, it's something worse: because terrorists at least have the excuse that if they made themselves a target they would be wiped off the face of the earth in under a day, and their political views are summarily ignored because they have no power to speak of. Assuming a nation did this, they had ample other means at their disposal other than secretly ordering someone murdered.

Hypatian wrote:

I would argue that if it's not terrorism, it's something worse: because terrorists at least have the excuse that if they made themselves a target they would be wiped off the face of the earth in under a day, and their political views are summarily ignored because they have no power to speak of. Assuming a nation did this, they had ample other means at their disposal other than secretly ordering someone murdered.

I agree. Not only ample means but the weight of the international community, diplomacy and the economic leverage to put pressure on the regime. If the US is indeed straight-up blowing up cars to kill people that's textbook terrorism. At that point the only difference between that and a suicide bomber at an Israeli cafe is intent and politics. Otherwise the goal is the same.

DSGamer wrote:

I agree. Not only ample means but the weight of the international community, diplomacy and the economic leverage to put pressure on the regime. If the US is indeed straight-up blowing up cars to kill people that's textbook terrorism. At that point the only difference between that and a suicide bomber at an Israeli cafe is intent and politics. Otherwise the goal is the same.

I have an easier time believing it was Israel than the U.S. Either way, it's pretty awful.

Hypatian wrote:

*sigh* Would you at least agree that assassination can be used for the purpose of inciting terror?

Sure. I guess I just misunderstood what you meant by "Assassination may or may not be terrorism."

The next question is this: is secret assassination of a civilian target by an agent of an unknown power during his daily commute likely to incite terror? Are there ways the objective could have been been achieved without inciting as much terror? If this began happening regularly, would it incite terror?

And is the incitement of terror in the populace the real defining property of "terrorism"? Does it have to be the intent of acts, or can it be a side effect? What if the side effect is intended? etc. etc. Lots of very fine lines here. That's essentially what I meant about "you can make an argument for it." I think you can make a compelling one, depending on how the people involved are defining terrorism.

The thing is, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but when it comes to targeted assassinations on nuclear scientists in order to keep those scientists from developing a nuclear weapon, there are no compelling arguments I can think of. I agree there are a lot of cases where you can make a compelling case, but we're talking about this case.

I tend to think of it in terms of asymmetric warfare: striking without allowing a counter-strike. And assassination certainly fits there. In this case, it's almost certainly a nation that did it instead of a small paramilitary organization--and instead of "we'll tell you who we are, but you can't hit us because you don't know where we are!" it's "you don't know for certain who it was, so you can't hit back." The goal is the same: trying to get away with murder because nobody can touch you for it.

I would argue that if it's not terrorism, it's something worse: because terrorists at least have the excuse that if they made themselves a target they would be wiped off the face of the earth in under a day, and their political views are summarily ignored because they have no power to speak of. Assuming a nation did this, they had ample other means at their disposal other than secretly ordering someone murdered.

I don't consider asymmetric warfare to be terrorism. I think that's going to be a tough argument, to say that trying to get away with murder to stop something from happening by taking out the people capable of doing it is worse than trying to scare a populace into changing their behavior by murdering somewhat random people with far less involvement in the program you're trying to stop.