sferrin said:
saintkatanalegacy said:
just avoiding political jousting that's all
Fair enough. I'd like to keep the politics out as well but sometimes they're so intertwined it's difficult. For example, your "trying to keep it serious" comment about nukes stems from a purely political standpoint. Technically, a 10Mt penetrating nuke could probably take out damn near any target that could be built. Politically, it would take balls of steel to use one which in this day and age is a virtual impossibility.
There would be plenty of international political "fallout" and internal public opinion would likely swing against it after the fact (even if it was initially in support). However, if there was a clear need for such a strike a politician could still do it, even if reelection would be unlikely and there is a possibility of trials if the strike required breaking the constitution of the country or international law. I agree though: it certainly wouldn't be a case of "politics as usual". Any situation where deployment of nuclear weapons is "politics as usual" would be pretty frightening.
I think the real problem is that the possession and stockpiling of such weapons would tend to justify Iran developing a deterrent. The constant saber rattling towards Iran means that any U.S. weapon can be perceived as possibly directed against the country (especially if discussions of such weapons include discussions about their use against Iran). In this case there is little justification under international law to prevent Iran from developing a credible nuclear deterrent - which is a very, very bad situation to come about.
This is by far the most important effect of the development of such weapons (because it increases the likelihood that there will be targets for them to hit)
sferrin said:
Does anybody here believe that if a dozen or three nuclear-tipped GBU-28s were used against Iran's nuclear efforts today that they wouldn't fold up the tent and abandon their nuclear weapons program immediately? And yet the politicians will continue to pretend sactions will work- right up until Iran has nuclear weapons.
Since you asked: I do.
A quick examination of the Iran-Iraq war should dispel any idea that Iranians (both government and citizens) are unwilling to make sacrifices and take tremendous casualties if sufficiently threatened. Such a strike *might* end the program, but it wouldn't immediately end the regime and it would likely cement opinion against the United States. Iran would certainly gain sympathy from other countries and the population would feel very threatened.
It is important to remember that the governments of dictatorships are even less likely to represent their populations than the governments of democracies. However, dictatorships thrive if they can make the population feel that they are threatened by the same forces as the governing regime. The USSR probably wouldn't have survived nearly as long as it did if it wasn't for the Cold War (which kept the population focused on militarisation and external, not internal problems).
Today Iran is a deeply divided country. A short time ago it was willing to recognise Israel (now it clearly isn't, but the policy swing shows clear potential). After 9/11 there were massive demonstrations throughout Iran in sympathy with the United States. Iran is not an Arab/Sunni country and is thus relatively free standing in the middle east. Iran has a high education rate and very large numbers of women being educated. All of this bodes well for the future.
I fully agree that sanctions won't work, but a first strike won't work either (although it could cause delays). However, taking off the pressure might actually lead to a change in government. It might take a decade after the first weapons are built, but it would still likely happen before the weapons are used.
My 2 cents on why a technological solution simply isn't appropriate here. Saintkatanalegacy: I'm truly sorry for a political discussion of Iran creeping into this post, as I loath politics - but it is an unavoidable corollary of discussing the uses of such weapons (if not the weapons themselves).
It is considered by many to be basic scientific ethics to at least raise such considerations. If anyone feels a need to reply - do so, but I won't further comment in this thread so as to try to minimise political discussion.