I ran across this item in a Janes newsletter today:
US warns Iran on threat to close oil strait. Senior US military officials have responded to Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a strike against its alleged nuclear facilities. Any attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an attack on its nuclear facilities would be an “act of war”, Commander of the US Fifth Fleet Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff said
Now however much anyone may wish for a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, such a strike will be a clear and unmistakable act of war. I find it exceedingly strange anyone would believe it would not be considered a casus belli. The Iranian leadership would have to either accept the war gauntlet or hang themselves then and there and save someone else the trouble. If attacked, they damn well are going to fight back. That is to be expected and any one who believes otherwise is a damn fool.
For us to say a war will only be started if Iran closes off the straits as their first counter attack is utterly dishonest.
Let us get this straight. Nations act in their own interest. If the US government decides it is of overriding Interests of State to take out the nuclear facilities of Iran, then it has declared war. Iran could, like the US with the Panay, choose to ignore the incident… but I doubt it. You may argue over the need for starting that war but calling black, white is not going to pass my semantic muster.
I have long said we should change the name of the DOD back to the Department of War. If you are going to make war, then you should damn well be a man and say so.
That said, I would really prefer we not do so.
Big deal.
The USA can just use Israel as proxies, as to the Straits of Hormuz, who cares? Firstly, it’ll give us an excuse to sink their entire crappy Navy, and secondly, they can ship the oil via the Red Sea (map here).
The Saudies have helpfully built a pipeline to Yanbu on their western coast with the Red Sea.
Oops. Here’s a link to that map again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saudi_Arabia_map.png.
And it’s “Saudis” not “Saudies”, sorry.
The United States point of view on this subject is, for a lack of a better word, bonkers! They are pretty much stating that Iran should not retaliate if the United States decides to attack their nuclear facilities. That is laughable.
It is comparable to someone coming up to you in the street, punching you in the face and when you respond by cocking your arm, they accuse you of inducing bodily harm on them!
Dale, you make a very good point to say that this is an act of war on the part of the U.S. I can see no other way of looking at the situation. I also agree that Iran is going to defend itself, no matter what the U.S. says (although that is probably what they want to happen because then they will have an excuse to invade Iran).
I am glad to see you get my semantic point. I am not specifically judging here whether we should or should not do it… I am pointing out that we should be honest to ourselves about what we are doing and why we are doing it.
Iran may indeed be a dangerous threat. I am not so certain they are all THAT dangerous though, given their internal situation. I do understand that this is a tactical move intended for pure intimidation to hopefully prevent Iran from retaliating. I would have considered it an honest statement if it had been:
“If we blow up your nuclear weapons plants and you so much as look cross-eyed at the Straits of Hormuz afterwards, we’ll kick your butt so hard it will take an archaeologist to find it.”
That is at least honest.
…would be an “act of more war”, Commander of the US Fifth Fleet Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff said
There, that makes bigger sense now.
Regarding the Iranian retaliation –
Considering that more and more Russian & Chinese surface to air missiles are appearing in Afghanistan, and considering the trouble they cause in Iraq, to say nothing of the talk of wiping Israel of the map or their continued support of terrorist organisations throughout the region, haven’t Iran already laid down the gauntlet?
Though you might find the words rather weasley, they do mark an important distinction, at least with regard to the intentions of the United States. What the Admiral appears to be saying is that, in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities the United States would not consider itself to be at war with Iran. This would be an intervention limited to a particular objective. However, were Iran to close a globally significant waterway, this would be considered an act of war, bringing the United States into a state of open and general conflict with Iran.
Given the consequences of this for Iran, it’s a distinction that should interest them intensely.
Though you might find the words rather weasley, they do mark an important distinction, at least with regard to the intentions of the United States. What the Admiral appears to be saying is that, in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities the United States would not consider itself to be at war with Iran. This would be an intervention limited to a particular objective. However, were Iran to close a globally significant waterway, this would be considered an act of war, bringing the United States into a state of open and general conflict with Iran.
Given the consequences of this for Iran, it’s a distinction that should interest them intensely.
Apologies for the double-post.
Where I work we drink beer on Friday afternoons.
What it comes down to is they want a weapon which is against our interests for them to have and we are big enough to make it stick.
If we were to take invent an example, the US supercarriers are a weapon system that runs counter to Chinese interests since they limit the Chinese ability to intimidate Taiwan. One could make the argument that if China were to go out and sink a few they could say they goals were limited and retaliation by the US would be considered an act of war. Well, we sure as hell would retaliate and we sure as hell would consider it an act of war.
Where you stand depends on where you sit… and whether when you are standing for something you actually believe in it.
The semantic point I am trying to force down everyones throats is that we do things because they are in our interest, or at least because some of our politicians believe so. The other side does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that we are on THIS side rather than THAT side.
I don’t need to double-think. I like Western Civilization just fine and I do not feel a need to sugarcoat my semantics to make people feel good.
I also recognize that an enemy will do the same things as us for the same reasons we would do them. That’s just the way the world works.
Does anybody really believe the US will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities? After the PR debacle that Iraq has been I find that notion bonkers. An attack by Israel, acting on its own motion, is a more likely scenario. In that case, it seems perfectly reasonable for the US to be warning Iran against expanding its response to such an attack to the closing of the Strait.
Dale,
I haven’t got access to the rest of the article so I can’t check this myself, but is it not possible that someone else might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities?
For instance, Israel might attack Iran. In which case Israel would be at war with Iran but the USA would not. In retaliation, Iran now closes the Strait of Hormuz. The USA considers this to be an act of war, so now the USA is at war with Iran.
Maybe I’ve missed the point, but it seems to me that a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, performed by a third state, would not necessarily mean that the USA is already at war with Iran.
I’d be interested in a look at the Jane’s article, since how I believe the ‘conversation’ went is something like this.
The Iranians said that if Israel attacked its nuclear facilities then Iran would close the straits of Hormuz.
The Americans then said they would consider this an act of war and retaliate appropriately.
As has been said, the US is unlikely to attack Iran cold in the near future, and after the general election, who knows.
To Dale: I very much agree with your thought process on this situation. What we do seems right to us because we are saturated by, for instance, our western perspective.
I would compare this to the Occident versus Orient debate that was eloquently stated by Edward Said in his book “Orientalism.” It is an eye opening read to say the least. Sometimes we become so caught up in our own propaganda that we forget there is often a second side to the story (ie: During World War II Germans, Japanese and Italians were viewed as the evil powers while the allies were portrayed as the ‘good guys.’)
Keep in mind that I am not necessarily saying we are wrong, just that we should look at things without the emotional baggage. I like Western values. I will not allow them to be lost and am more than willing to fight for them. That means that I must accept the fact that I might need to fight and kill someone else who believes just as firmly in their values. If it is him or me, it is going to be him on the ground.
And you are right: the Nazi certainly believed in what he was doing and we believed in what we were doing. It was a battle of sides that equally believed in themselves. I happen to believe that what they fought for was as near to pure evil as we have seen in at least a millenium and am rather glad they are the ones whose belief system was crushed.
I do not believe all positions are equivalent or interchangeable. Some ways of life are indeed demonstrably better and deliver more to those who hold to them.
If you really believe in Western values then you must be prepared to fight for them. The other guy believes in his way or else he would not be opposing you. Recognizing that is just being honest and a realist.
Conservative thinkers can be as muddy headed as liberals when it comes to issues of war and when and why to fight. If we first drop all this righteous crap and look at thing dispassionately we can then decide if a threat needs to be dealt with or not.
Just a couple of days ago, the British Government finally stirred itself to ban the military wing of Hezbollah (the political and “humanitarian” agencies of the Tehran-controlled terrorist organization are still free to carry on in Blighty). Tick tock.
Europe continues to dither on ABM defense while the Persians continue their parallel nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Without a resolution to these most pressing issues, the Continent’s democracies will soon find themselves under the gun without any means of defense, save what the United States of America deigns to offer them.
When the Ayatollahs finally demonstrate the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead on the City, what will be the reaction from Brussels? Surrender the Czech Republic? Poland? Hell, toss in the Palatinate!
This “America must restrain itself” meme has the stench of 1938 all over it.
I am very much afraid that America will be unable to save Europe this time unless it tries to save itself. Demographically mainland Europe is committing suicide. Unless something drastic happens it will be a continent of unpopulated cities and tourist attractions, a continent wide Euro-Disney with actors brought in from elsewhere to play the role of Europeans.
The facility will of course be owned by the Saudi’s.
I see that Poland has rejected the US missile shield offer today.
I believe the Iranians have said that if anyone attacked their nuclear facilities, they would close the Straight of Hormuz.
That is not the same as an act of war by the US because it probably wouldn’t be the US doing it. We’re not responsible for what the Israelis do.
The Israelis have their own reasons for considering such an action, not the least of which being promises that Israel would soon be wiped off the map in a ball of fire.
The way to handle that is to have a couple tin cans gong back and forth in the Straits. Any attempt to close of the straits will require an attack on a US vessel. I’m not sure it would even require us to go to war with them if that were the case. If they close the straits they lose their ‘Navy’ and any of their air force that does so much as a threatening radar ping of the Gulf.
Now if they escalated and tried to mix it with a carrier… then the after you splash the attackers you take out the air bases.
Keep in mind that Iran is a far larger and more populous country than Iraq. The government there mistreats the population but to no where near the extent of Saddam. War would probably create solidarity where it does not currently exist.
The only way a war with Iran would work would be if there were a simultaneous uprising inside and a minimal attack from outside to support it.
I just do not think it is a good idea, and as much as I dislike the Ayatollah’s, they just do not go high enough on my evil scale to justify initiation of full scale war.
I’d much prefer it if something happened to their nuke plants and we then just kept the lid on things.
Long term we are much better off with a strong Iraq as their neighbor. Iraq has an inherent interest in Iran not getting out of hand.
As Dale’s note indicates, it is quite difficult to extract the intention of words outside the context in which they are used.
Every hostile act, even gravely damaging physically or politically, is not an Act of War..
Consider the recent destruction of a facility in Syria? However hostile, was tha an Act of War? No, not if you accept that War seeks to (or defends against those who would) conquer or disable another population (or regime); otherwise, every “border clash” would be an act of war.
Attempts to restrict access to an international waterway (though succesfully done as tarrifs by England in the time of Nelson) might be taken by some nations – if their ships were taken or fired upon – as Acts of War by an entity acting without “just” cause. England did not do so when its naval personnel were seized in Iraqi waters, as I recall.
It does seem that what the Admiral did was to make clear how a certain hostile act would be perceived.
Perhaps it did not yet need be said. But, recent history has shown that “failures to understand” the likely responses of a contra-party have been a principal cause of actual war. Korea was a prime example.
As to the U.S. in hostile acts, it is not likely that Isreal can carry out such a strike on Iran without facilitation by others (even if we only “lend” some aging tankers for re-fueling after training in their use).
It should be well know that the regime of Iran has a stated objective of specific destruction which can be understood as a declaration of war.
Nationalism and pride notwithstanding, if Iran engages world shipping of such a vital nature, it will be unable to sustain full scale hostilities with its armies in the field for much more than 3 weeks (as our forces withdraw either north into friendly Kurdish hills, with Turkey as a fall-back, or some into the Al Hijarah to stretch and expose Iranian lines to air interdiction).
This leaves the question of Russian intervention, which is not bloody likely! Would they expect the Syrians (who use proxies themselves) to risk all in a commitment to engage the U.S.?
Iran is not Arab; nor is it Turkic. It will be isolated, trying to harm all.
Too sanguine? In the real sense of that word?
I use a simple rule for thinking about acts of war. I reverse the roles and ask myself if we would consider it an act of war if done to us.
If China fired cruise missiles into the Hanford facility to cut our nuclear capacity, would American consider it an act of war? I suspect the answer is yes. The only question then is whether going to war is in our interests or is necessary to prevent even further loss of sovereignity.
Iranian leaders will make the same calculation. I have very old fashioned ideas about war and honourable behavior. When a warcraft crosses a frontier it is a hostile act; if it drops bombs or machine guns facilities, it is an act of war.
By the way, I highly recommend that link I put up. The 1937 film footage in the higher quality format is a real look at a long ago time and an act of war on the US that was met with turned cheek… and 4 years later the cost was Pearl Harbor.
Syria did not respond to an act of war because they were in no position to do so. Israel most like knew that before the attack was launched. That is just good realpolitik on the part of the Israeli’s.
Likewise Iran may be bullied into not responding.
There are many reasons why a sovereign nation might not respond to an act of war. It might be ill prepared and need to bide its time; it might feel that it is indeed guilty in the worlds eyes; it might think the offense can be ignored with impunity; it might even be pure cowardice. It might be any of a thousand things I have not even thought of. That does not change the fact that an attack on sovereign territory is an act of war.
The UK patrol boat was mentioned. Piracy has often not been used as an entry into war unless the vessel was either significant or the vessel was attacked with great loss of life. Had an Iranian warship sunk the craft and killed those on board, it most certainly would have been an act of war against the UK.
I should clarify. Isolated acts of Piracy have not been the cause of war in any cases I can think of… but repeated piracy certainly has!
The original comment was about an Israli (or other nonAmerican attack).
Nor would the Israelis be acting as proxies – they have made it very clear they are willing to go it alone if American fails to find someway to prevent the Iranian regime going for nukes.
This is the result of 29 years of failure to understand the Iranian regime.
“Nations act in their own interests” – sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. I suppose it depends what you mean.
Political leaders act for all sorts of reasons.
For example, in the 1960s American leaders did not wish to see the Republic of Vietnam fall to the Marxists (they were not actually fighting to win – as winning was “simplistic” but they did not want a Marxist Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam).
This was not in the United States economic interest (the war cost a lot of money), nor could a direct attack on the United States be expected from IndoChina – but ideology (beliefs) were involved.
They are with the Iranians also.
The Iranian regime (the President, the Supreme Leader, the Council of Guardians and so on) believe that the hidden iman will only come forth if they bring war to the infidels (not just Israel).
In this regard they have been lauching various attacks on Western interests for 29 years (many Americans have been killed) – but most people have not noticed.
The people who took the embassy in 1979 have not changed.
They are at war with the United States (as the most important infidel nation) still.
Such is the nature of their beliefs.
It is “the interest of their nation” – if one thinks as they do.
So lets see if I am understanding this correctly. You are walking through an unsafe part of Chicago. A gangster announces he is going to kill you because you are wearing the wrong colors. He draws a gun, points it at you and begins cocking the hammer. You must wait until he shoots you before you defend yourself? Because otherwise you are the aggressor?
On this matter, we differ. If you shoot the gun out of his hand (hey, it works in the movies) and he draws a knife to slash your throat, he is only acting in self defense because ‘you started it’? Seriously, we differ on this point.
And if you see something in my example to suggest that I equate ‘keeping and bearing’ arms with threatening to use them, please explain. I have no complaint with India having nukes. I have no complaint if they are owned France, the UK or any other country that plausibly will not initiate an attack with them.
I believe in disarming criminals. Threatening murder is a crime worthy of being disarmed. And this administration of Iran most emphatically has a criminal record.
Incidentally, this is a foundation of my severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. A swaggering, threatening blusterer, he utterly destroyed our credibility while doing things that would probably have been accepted if they were done in a more thoughtful and composed way. I despise both of the political parties and their national candidates with good reason.
Incidentally, if Iran nuked France, I have little doubt that France would nuke Iran in retaliation. I prefer Israel’s plan.
There may be times when one finds it desirable to shoot first. But words have certain meanings that are independent of the specific case. If you replace your persons with nations, then one can make the argument that acting pre-emptively may in some cases be the smart thing to do. It just may happen that one commits an Act of War and is the aggressor because one finds the alternative unpalatable.
Dale,
From the article quote you present there is no indication the American admiral was referring to a “strike against its alleged nuclear facilities” by the USA; it looks more likely a warning to the Iranians that if the Israelis do so, the Iranians will not be allowed to expand the conflict without the USA intervening. That is just a standard policy statement of intent.
The Freedom of the Seas (a.k.a. Freedom of Navigation) is actually a very old American aspiration they have defended by force several times (remember the Gulf of Sidra?); it was actually one of President Wilson’s Fourteen Points, and it has been the cause of conflict several times in the past (with the British before the War of 1812 and twice before that with the Barbary States). So I do not see what all your commentary is for: no new policy has been produced, and no redefinition of the term “State of War” has happened.
On top of that, we have the situation that since Israel does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, they were at war with them in the past, and no peace treaty has ever been signed, they are technically already in a state of war with them. As for the USA, that would depend on if the Teheran Embassy hostage crisis would be a casus belli or not.
We already covered that particular possibility. I am mostly arguing over the use and mis-use of words. One could indeed have claimed the hostage crisis was an act of war… if one could call the rag tag bunch of students and clerics and thugs could be called a government.
As I said above, if it were indeed Israel attacking, then we should have a couple of destroyers in the Straits and be on alert ready to take out anything ships, planes and missile launch sites should an attack be made. If Israel attacked on their own, then israel would be the official aggressor against Iran and Irans retaliation would be aggression against the US; if the US conspired with Israel then they would be co-aggressors.
The first one to attack is the aggressor and is the one committing the Act of War. This is not to say that such aggression may not be provoked or have cause, as a previous comment used in an example.
When the US military runs blue force / red force exercises, one of the forces is called the aggressor. They are the first one to attack and the other force responds.
Is state-sponsored terrorism an act of war? If Iran funds and supports Hezbollah, who have fired missiles across an international border with the intention of killing non-combatants, is that an act of war? Doesn’t Iran also materially support Hamas? After 1948, did Iran ever get around to signing a peace treaty?
In this situation of an almost continual 60 year tit-for-tat low-level war, does this word “pre-emptive” still really mean anything?
I don’t think the treaties against aggressive war were written with the intention of stopping good people defending themselves against a threat like this, and it’s wrong to interpret them that way. But even if you suppose they do mean that, it’s still probably better to start a war than to get nuked.
Who was it said “When the rules don’t work, you break ’em”?
The only the that the ‘rules’ against ‘wars of aggression’ have accomplished is to ensure that no one ever is the aggressor. They just bend the words to mean something else.
You are getting close to the root of the doublespeak that has led to words being twisted inside out to mean different things depending on whom is speaking to whom about whom.
If aggression is illegal, then obviously no one ever fires first. The other guy did it.
There is much good in saying one should never be the aggressor, but it does have some downsides and I think initiation of force has to have a little bit of wiggle room for those cases where there is a serious threat, overt or covert. In rare cases aggression is justfiable. But the action is still described by the same word either way.
When we start talking about when should one commit aggression in self-defense, that is when we really do get into areas which can get extraordinarily muddy extraordinarily quickly. The best answer is don’t do it. The more realistic answer is, you will either know when you are under immediate (clear and present danger) threat or else you are in a situation that requires long and hard thought as to whether it really is what you think it is.
It’s easy to know when to defend. It’s when you have to attack first that the moral and ethical questions get very, very hard.
So much for Rocket Scientists. Honestly, Dale, if another country attacks Iran, and Iran tries to close the straits, which they can attempt with mines, guided missiles, submarines, and surface ships, then it is an act of war. And SA, the various Kingdoms, and Iraq would be justified as regarding it as such, as well as the US.
“…and I think initiation of force has to have a little bit of wiggle room for those cases where there is a serious threat…”
The problem is that when they built that wiggle room into the treaty – they came up with the UN Security Council, which is legally required to authorise action to remove threats to ‘international peace and security’ so others don’t have to.
I don’t think the writers of the treaty ever considered the possibility that the UNSC and the UN generally could get taken over by the bad guys. They originally treated the old WWII axis powers differently (‘enemy states’) because they understood that some nations were opposed to peace and couldn’t be given the same benefit of the doubt, but that sort of thing gets quickly out of date.
It’s like when the police can’t or won’t defend you against the criminals, but they won’t let you take the law into your own hands either.
I might also add to the discussion that it is very difficult for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities without the assistance of the US. The US controls the airspace from the entry to the Gulf to Turkey. The three possibilities for Israel are approaches over Turkey, Iraq or Saudi Arabia.
The later two will requre the US AWACS gives them a clear fly through Iraq or over the Gulf; or that Iraq makes an agreement with Israel and requests the US to allow an overflight; or that Turkey makes a similar agreement to the one used in the Syrian attack. The difficulty is, a flight through Turkey is going to require refueling. That is a very long flight for an attack plane.So you will either require staging from Turkey or in flight refueling. I do not know that state of Israeli in flight refueling but I suspect (I do not actually know) they don’t have that capability.
That means it is highly likely the US will be a partner to the plan and will not have a good case for deniability, and even if the attack went through Turkey, everyone would assume the US was involved anyway. Diplomats may be able to argue are innocence if such a strike occurs but I couldn’t.
As far as I am concerned, if the decision is made that it is going to be done, then we should be honest about it and just commit the act of war, accept being the aggressor and take the damn things out.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_1999_Sept_20/ai_55895449
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling#Flying_Boom_Systems_in_Service
Does denial have to be plausible? Iran denies sponsoring terrorism, they deny seeking nuclear weapons, and they don’t seem to think it will cause them any insurmountable problems. And if everyone is going to think it anyway…
Whether Iran see it as a casus belli is not under US control, so it’s hardly for them to say. Are the US actually denying that it could be one, or simply not saying, but pointing out that closing the straits in response would be seen by them as a casus belli?
Thank you for the links Alisa!
Dale’s last comment is spot on. The IAF just can’t hit the Iranians with a knock-out blow, conventionally.
The US could but won’t. They know they’ll lose Iraq if they do.
There are three solutions. Iran goes nuclear which is utterly intolerable, the mullahs get overthrown or Iran goes Hiroshima and that’s WW4. So we have to either overthrow the Islamic Republic by internal means or nuke them. It is that simple and that horrible.
Personally, I favour giving them a time-scale until Qom and Tehran cease to exist. And I seriously mean it. I mean multi-megatonnage and the destruction of every form of life but the ant and the cockatrice in those districts.
It is time the Muslims learned the fear of a force much higher than Allah. It worked against Japan, right?
Those cunts have been pulling our collective pisser for nearly 30 years and they need to be telt.
And BTW closing the straights of Hormuz and impeding the freedom of the seas is an act of war. It should be punished as such. There was a time when the RN knew that. HMS Cornwall should have blown those fucks back to Allah.
They should be humbled (and I mean the Dinner Jacket eating his own genitals and calling them tasty) and told in no uncertain terms that if they mock the majesty of the West they will get imperially butt-fucked for their troubles.
Why we’re even debating what to do about a bunch of pig-ignorant goat-molesters is beyond me. Robert Oppenheimer knew what to do. Ellen Ripley knew what to do. “W” and that monocular Jock cunt clearly have no idea.
We just tell ’em that if they want nuclear weapons they’re gonna get a fucking test drive whether they fucking like it or not if they do not cease and desist.
Sometimes the best move is to let nature take its course. It is my understanding that Iran has the same demographic problem that Europe has. Additionally, they have very serious economic problems. Add to that a serious internal problem with people who dislike the religious government and want more Democracy, Whisky, Sexy…. and that tells me that Iran’s leaders want an external adventure. Without one their sell by date is rapidly approaching.
I am not sure we should give them what they most need to survive.
I have taken awhile to think about Nick’s comment. The issues he brings up are ones I have pondered from time to time since 9/11. The conclusion that I have come to is that we would not and should never consider that approach even if it would save millions of our own lives.
The reason is that the very act of doing it would destroy something in us that is even more important than life. We would destroy within ourselves the very essence of who we are as Americans. We do not go out and murder millions of innocent people, even if it means our own lives. That is who we are. The guilt of such an horrendous act would eat away at the national psyche and destroy us utterly. We would not feel we deserved to exist on this planet. There are few things worse than self-hate. We may see some of that today, but it would be nothing compared to the self-loathing we would have after such a barbarous action.
There would be no America the Day After. It would be something else, hollow and meaningless.
I rather liked your point about renaming the DOD for its original namesake–the Dept of War. American politicians are forever idealistic in naming things for the hoped-for results(defense) rather than the actual process(war). The same goes for the Dept of Justice (the hoped for result) as opposed to the administration of the laws (what the DOJ actually does). Although such semantic obscuranity does not attend to all such nomenclature in American government, it exists all too frequently, and not by accident. For some reason, a nation that is supposed to have a reputation for hard-headed practicality all too often in “gentler” more modern times uses it’s idealism to shield the public from the raw reality of what government actually does by the use of such euphemisms.
Nick, at the time I was hoping that that’s what going into Iraq would be about. But we chose to spread democracy instead…
Dale: Google is still your friend:-)
I actually agree with your point about semantics, and I also share Mid’s POV. I think that you and others may have just been speaking past each other here, as the two positions don’t seem incompatible to me.
As to your response to Nick: what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so lets see, if Israel attacks Iran and destroys its nuclear facilities Iran has every right to attack America and American interests.
but……… when Hamas and Hezballah attack Israel and kill her citizens Israel has no rights at all to attack Iran. Hmmmm, it all comes back to evil America and we should blame us for all the worlds ills.
How about this: Israel tells the world that the next time Hamas rains some missiles that say “made in Iran, funded by Iran, planned by Iran” on its territory, Israel will exercise its right to self-defense at a time and place of her choosing.
Will that get America off the hook?
Two points …
The Dept of War became the Dept of the Army. The Dept of Defense was formed when the formerly independent Dept of War & Dept of Navy (along with the new Dept of Air Force) under a new Sec of Defense.
Also — under the Bush supported LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty), will the US be ALLOWED to respond to a closure of a sea way … or must we go beging to the UN?
The UN has a track record of not standing up to islamic closure of sea ways since at least the 1967 closure of the Tiran & Suez.
Hmm, so the Iranian’s acts against our forces in Iraq are not acts of war?
Seems to me we can and should prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
If they want to widen the conflict further at that point, then have at it, and may they enjoy the fruits of their actions.
Alisa: I was expecting that and one other query and am fully prepared for it.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki happaned at the end of a long and terrible war and were seen as just another weapon and one which would actually (and did) save more lives than it killed. There was nothing special about the death toll there at the time except that it only took one airplane instead of a thousand. We did not start the war; we were attacked. We then fought brutal and evil enemies and ended a war with two bombs. Some 40,000 Japanese died on Okinawa just in the fighting.
The parallel would be if we were at war with Iran for years along the border and after losing hundreds of thousands of Americans and staggering losses of life on both sides of the border, we nuked a small city in Iran.
The other example which has not been brought up is the Cold War. We would have retaliated against Russia, but their missiles would already be on the way and 2/3 of us would have barely had time to kiss our loved ones goodbye. Had we survived, we would not have loved ourselves for it but there would have been the rationalization that they started.
The idea of carrying out a massive nuclear strike on another nation that is not engaged in all out war with you is just an act of a different magnitude. So are the numbers Nick was suggestion. Genocide for safety is not a trade I would be willing to make even to save my life. It is just… wrong. It completely goes against all the ‘Jacksonian’ values I was brought up with.
The phrase “Death before Dishonour” comes to mind…
I’ve been saying for a long time that the Department of Defense is not just a semantic abortion, it is unconstitutional.
In the original setup, the U.S. Army was an ephemeral. The Constitution specifies that no allocation of funds for an army can be for more than two years. That was because the Founders had a horror of “standing armies” based on experience — standing armies were much more often used for oppression than anything else.
The Navy was permanent. There was no restriction as to funding or its continuous existence. Therefore there were two distinct departments to manage the different systems: the War Department, which maintained a cadre or nucleus from which a large Army could be created at need, and the Navy Department, which served the President as a strategic force and diplomatic backup. This is why the Marine Corps exists — it is a (relatively) small ground-capable force which, because it is part of the Navy, is usable only outside the U.S. Some wag described the Navy as “the President’s sidearm”, and there’s a lot to be said for that description.
Mixing the two together has resulted in bringing the Navy under the two-year restriction, with disastrous consequences for planning and construction… and has turned the two-year restriction into a joke, a figleaf for continual maintenance of an Army. We owe the existence of the Department of Defense to Curtis LeMay’s empire-building to create the Air Force, mostly Strategic Air Command and delivery systems for nuclear weapons.
SAC no longer exists, and many of the structures built to sustain the Air Force as a separate entity are beginning to lose major parts and leak radiation, notably the Key West Agreement. It is my belief that it is time, possibly past time, to revert to the old system — to divide the Air Force up into “Army-like” components (tactical elements, the structural equivalent of tanks) and “Navy-like” ones (strategic elements, notably ICBMs and long-range bombers plus cruise missiles) and recreate the War and Navy Departments, tossing the “Department of Defense” into the dumper. It’s what the Founders intended, and would make the semantic distinctions Dale wants to emphasize easier to accommodate.
Regards,
Ric
If Israel were to make the strike instead of the U.S., that would make no difference: It is widely accepted in the Middle East that Israel would do nothing of that nature without the approval of the U.S. Indeed, it is very unlikely that Israel would still exist without the sustained and ongoing support of the U.S.
So an attack on Iran by Israel (even aside from the tactical issues that others have mentioned) will be seen as an attack by the U.S.
Talking of acts of war, while I agree that if the US were to attack Iran that would clearly be an act of war, is it not true that Iran attacked the US when they invaded the US embassy back in the 70s and held diplomats hostage for more than a year? Thus Iran has already declared war on the US and as far as I know, no peace treaty has been signed by the two nations. Thus, Iran and the US are at war, and until they reach some sort of agreement they will remain so, or am I missing something here?
I thought that Iran has long been at war with the US. We just refuse to ack that fact, and pay a high price. With 100K US men in Iraq, you’d think we’d have some sympathy for their safety and crush Iran – on our grounds – before they [Iran] decides to strike them on their terms. But that would take a DoW acting in our self-interest rather than a DoD under an altruist’s command dispensing with welfare (which is a good deal of the DoD’s activity these days).
First of all, I have no problem with renaming the DOD as DOW. That would be clarifying.
Second, I agree that the U.S. striking Iranian nuclear facilities would be an act of war. I do not understand that anyone is saying otherwise.
Third, I suspect the statement that triggered this post was alluding to Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz if attacked, say, by Israel.
That said, that doesn’t mean that Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz isn’t also an act of war. Of course Iran and whichever country that bombs Iranian nuke facilities would already be in a war, no doubt about that. I’m understanding Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff to be saying that Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz can be regarded as an act of war by all other nations that also desire to navigate the Strait of Hormuz.
Dale,
With regards to your point on American values, and why the U.S. should not initiate a total destruction of Tehran: I agree with you, and bring up an illustration from history.
Sometime during the Peloponnesian Wars (431 – 404 BC), the Athenians took offense at the temerity of some small city-state that decided not to pay tribute that year. Roused and angered, the citizens of Athens sent part of their navy to attack the little island and slaughter their people, down to the last one.
Several hours later, somebody managed to call together the citizens of Athens for another meeting. He basically asked, “Are you out of your mind? This is no way to act!” He convinced them, and they sent a second contingent of ships to catch up with the first, with the incentive of a huge prize if they should be able to prevent the slaughter.
In fact, they succeeded: Possibly the second crew had a deeper confidence in the essential rightness of what they were doing than the first.
This is one of the few edifying events I remember from the Peloponnesian Wars.
We need to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-weapons state, but destroying a people because you don’t like their government is no way to act. The Iranians don’t like their government, either.
Dale, we have been at war with Iran for years, in fact for about three decades. Not a declared war by our side, and only occasionally a hot one, but still a war.
Nothing magically bad would happen to America if we did nuke Iran, nothing magically bad would happen if we destroyed the Iranian government.
When you wrote:
“I am not sure we should give them what they most need to survive.”
I become convinced you are delusional. Why on earth do you think they would survive it?
You are complaining about this statement by an American Admiral, claiming it is double-think.
“I don’t need to double-think.”
There is no double think in it. There is no misuse of words, the meaning cannot be mistaken. If Iran uses an attack against its nuclear facilities as a pretext to close the Hormuz, America will undertake the open war against Iran.
There is no obfuscation there.
“Genocide for safety is not a trade I would be willing to make even to save my life.”
Then I would say you are already spiritually dead, just still walking.
“The phrase “Death before Dishonour” comes to mind…”
What is dishonorable is choosing a course of action which leads to your destruction, when another course leads to your survival and the destruction of some very evil people. Doing what is needful is virtuous.
Another point, nuking Iran would not be genocide. Mounting a ground campaign to kill the survivors, man, woman, and child–that would be genocide.
What is vastly more likely is that we would mount a humanitarian campaign to succor them.
And it’s all beside the point that we will almost certainly not be nuking them anyway, and beside the point that if we do ever need to–really the Iranian people shouldn’t have put up with the mullahs, and it’s their bad that they have.
Dale,
Yes and how many more lives would have been saved if Enola Gay dropped Little Boy earlier? The US didn’t spend two billion fucking dollars for giggles and fits did it?
The whole point of having nukes is that they are a thousand bomber raid coming at you on the tip of a hypersonic missile. They are fucking terrifying. They make people take stock. They are un-fucking-believable. Nobody in even the semblance of a right mind pitches-up against them.
Little Boy was brighter than a thousand suns and killed 140,000 people in five seconds. And that is precisely why we should never, ever, let the Iranians have them and also why we should strong-arm them on the subject with our nukes. America would be reduced by destroying 6000 years of Persian civilization but they fucking well started it and if it’s a choice between New York or London getting whacked and Tehran then it’s no choice for me.
This is a country which hangs homosexuals. This is a country that has a dress code. This is a country which sponsors terrorists. This is a country with a female age of consent of nine. This is a country that can kill the global economy by closing the straits of Hormuz. This, Dale, is a country that utterly humiliated the USA for 444 days.
And you think I’m wrong to tell the fuckers to cease, desist and grow-up or they’ll get a Biblical fucking-over the likes of which…
This is nuclear weapons we are talking about on both counts. This is fucking serious. It is no laughing matter but it could be a nuking one.
Their choice. They can play the fucking game or they can experience a supersonic sleet of broken glass in downtown Qom. They should be told it’s our way or the fuerstorm.
I’d do it. I’d give the fucker’s something to think about. They have been a weed up the ass of civilization for nearly 30 years. I’m piggy rotten sick of the cunts. And if they get it they fucking well deserve it.
Dale: yes, I have to agree.
Dale,
Especially risible is your notion that there is something unJacksonian about genocide. When the actual Jacksonians encountered a culture which made war in the similarly dastardly fashion of the Iranians–then the American settlers going West ran into the more-native than-them Indians–the response was exactly genocidal. It was not thought dishonorable, but simply the reasonable response to irreconcilable differences.
In fact, it the origin of the joke about how we Americans haven’t started playing “Cowboys and Moslems” yet. And we haven’t.
In fact, decapitating and insofar as it can be done, de-nuking, the Iranian state is the best way to fend off having to “play Cowboys and Moslems.”
You know not remotely of where you speak, sir.
The comments have been made about supplying weapons and training to a country to enable to fight a proxy war. Iran has done this. So has Syria. But so does everyone else. The US, Russia, China, Cuba, UK, France and at one time or another in the last 100 years virtually everyone else who could afford it.
War by proxy has been a very popular way of doing business and I cannot fault the Iranians for applying the tactic. I would also not mind making them stop.
We have never, to my knowledge, declared war on Iraq; they have spewed words invective in speeches at us but there has never been a declaration of war. We are in competition with them and we do not like the Ayotallahs, but we are not at war with them.
Most of the Iranians I have talked to on the internet are folk I find quite decent and not all that different from people here. I do not wish to kill them. I would not mind seeing a few of their leaders taken out with pin point accuracy… but I have no ill will towards the average Iranian at all.
Yes, nuclear weapons are both terrifying and of little use in a real military sense. Technology has bypassed them for most purposes. The only remaining missions are terror, deterrence and deeply buried targets.
If you are not the top one on the totem pole, you want them for the same reason you’d buy what all the internet Spam mail sells. Even if we succeed in blocking Iran from building them now, the time at which preventing every Tom, Dick and Harry from building one becomes impossible is getting very close.
It took a Manhattan Project 60 years ago. Today it takes a bit of a strain on the budget of a minor country. In another 40 years it will be feasible in a cave in Lower Slobbovia. We are going to have to deal with a world in which just about anyone can get one.
Missile defense (for those smart enough to take part) negates a big part of the threat. But we are going to need a technological solution or else we are going to go into the 22nd century with cities replaced by widely dispersed networked populations.
Iran and their attempt at the bomb is just the latest mole to threaten to stick its head up.
You can look forward to a rapidly accelerating game of whack-a-mole.
Oh, and a bit of an editorial warning. First, Nick: calm down. You’ve been around Samidata a long time and know better.
Second: Tim, you may be a new comer via Glenn’s link. We discuss and debate here. Ad hominem and debate by loud gesticulation is not on here. You must stay within the bounds you would be required to stay in if we were all sitting in Perry’s livingroom sipping a fine wine.
And everyone: it is entirely possible to remain polite while debating your points to the best of your ability.
I suppose the point is that if Iran wants nuclear weapons bad enough to risk being targeted by Israel, they should know that their best leverage against Israel, the closing of the straits of Hormuz, will bring in the US.
Rather like the French serving notice to Austria-Hungary that an invasion of Serbia would mean war with Russia and France. That was supposed to induce Austria Hungary to back down. Rather, Austria Hungary got German guarantees against Russian and French action. The British were going to come in to tip the balance based on their balance of power idea. And so 11 million men died in war, with another 25 million dieing from the flu epidemic caused by diminished nutrition, and crowded living (military barracks were particularly conducive to infection, permitting a mile disease to mutate to a more virulent strain.
I completly dissagree with this often quoted comment. Israel has done quite well defending itself in the past without U.S. help. In fact we became involed primarily to offest Soviet support for Eqypt and other Arab powers to restore balance in the region. It is also likely we became involved in 67 and 73 to keep the conflict from going nuclear. I see this assertion as primarily a face saving move by Arab states aware of their own ineptitude in Warfighting. Review the history of the Israeli nuclear weapons programs. The best information I can find suggests they had them in 66, and several in 73, were the survival of Israel in jeapordy I think the desert close to the Suez and around Cairo, as well as that around Damascus would have a layer of glass on it. Terrorist proxies are a different matter, should Iran or the Arab states get a nuke. I still have not seen a stated workable response to such an event from either party. Iran would be the most likely but not the only possible return address, as they have made frequent and successful use of terrorist groups as proxies. I hope someone is keeping signatures of fissile material from the Iranian reactors handy. Better just to remove the threat before it comes to that.
Dale,
I suspect Alisa is correct and we are talking past each other but in general agreement. On that premise, I will lay out semantic, logical and moral points as clearly as I can.
1. There is much talk on the thread about what is or isn’t an ‘act of war’. All of these things are acts of war, I am specifically construing ‘act of aggression’ to apply solely to the party that initiates the confrontation. It is my belief that Iran has repeatedly violated this with actions and words in recent times. They clearly hold the current status of aggressor which is particularly relevant in regard to their pursuit of nuclear weapons.
2. I utterly oppose the US initiating the use of nuclear weapons. This is on two grounds.
a. RE your genocide points. Preemptive genocide is beyond the pale of discussion, much less consideration. If an act of genocide as Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki is taken during a hot war against an aggressor it weighs on its merits. But initiating it preemptively is not something I am willing to take seriously enough to rebut.
b. I oppose the use of any weapons who’s consequences are measured in half-lifes unless there is no possible alternative. We have plenty of alternatives to everything I can think of except for an extremely deep bunker. When discussing ways to address that particular scenario nuclear is reasonable for consideration as long as the fact the winds that blow to the east eventually arrive from the west is held always in mind. Nuclear weapons on any scale at all, especially with our highly leveraged world food system, is a matter of dueling with hand grenades in compact car.
3. Iran is two different populations. It is more suitable for the Ataturk treatment than Turkey ever was. It only needs an Ataturk to arise from among the secular population. Iran could easily become a strong ally of the US and had we not given the Shaw carte blanc to do what he wanted as long as he opposed the Soviets, things may have been very different. They may yet be.
4. I consider the attribution of a strike against nuclear weapons facilities to the US or to Israel to not be a significant matter. Even we in the US would presume some involvement by us and frankly, if evidence is sound that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, I don’t care who does it.
One other slightly more on topic point, the comment posted by Ric Locke at July 5, 2008 04:23 PM is worth a thoughtful read. The only thing I add to it is at that time, the founders saw naval forces as being unable to be used against the states in any serious way. Armies could be. I don’t know how the founders would have looked on aerial warfare apparatus, but it is an interesting thought exercise.
This thread seems to have evolved into two separate discussions: one concerning Vice Admiral Cosgriff’s quoted statement, and one concerning the use of a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran. The two are by no means the same thing.
Admiral Cosgriff’s statement is a straightforward announcement of governmental intent. In a world of highly nuanced diplomatic hints and inferences, on something as serious as this it’s important not to be misunderstood. (For example, it seems likely that Saddam Hussein didn’t actually believe that Bush would attack Iraq; see where that little misunderstanding got us.) This message is crystal clear: if Iran moves to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, whatever the provocation, we will not permit it. Not even Ahmadinejad can miss that message, and the US was right to deliver it.
On the other point, while I would be extremely hesitant to initiate the use of nuclear weapons, in my opinion it would be extremely unwise to rule out the possibility. While we seem to have the technology (“smart” weapons, drone aircraft, stealth bombers, etc.) to inflict sufficient damage on Iran should the need arise, if those don’t do the trick we must be prepared to use the entire arsenal. If we have to go to war, we can’t be squeamish about it, and if it’s a choice between our people and theirs I know who I would choose. Nick’s hyperbole notwithstanding, a single tactical nuke on Tehran should be adequate and it would not constitute “genocide”. (That word is bandied about with abandon these days, to the point where it is losing any meaning, but the proper definition is the destruction of an entire people. Wiping out Tehran would kill many, but it is not genocide.) If it comes to that I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. And I certainly wouldn’t begin to “doubt my essence” or question my “right to exist.” I guess Dale is a better person than I am.
Laird:
Yes, discussions do wander. While what you say is true from a diplomatic viewpoint, I am arguing about the manipulation of language that underlies it, the meta-context An accurate translation is close to what I said earlier. My argument is not the intent of the statement but the implication that such a surgical strike is not an act of war and that said war would not exist unless they fight back. If words have meaning, Iran has a right to say we have already declared war by bombing within their sovereign territory.
As to nuclear weapons, I consider them very much a last resort weapon to be used to ensure our survival. A strike on a Tehran with even a small weapon would kill tens of thousands. I would consider it murder in cold blood and on that issue I would indeed call for trying some US officials for war crimes. There is absolutely nothing we could need to do in Iran that we cannot do with our modern conventional arsenal.
Now, if indeed we managed to get ourselves into an all out war on the Iran-Iraq border and were losing, I could accept the use of tacticals against troop formations or key logistical areas; or if we fell into a bloody deadlock reminiscent of WWI. I do not find either of those scenarios very likely.
If a nuclear weapons facility were built under ground in an urban area, I do understand that ‘just war theory’ would give a moral figleaf to a nuclear strike. I would still prefer the use of other means, even if more costly to our side. I cannot condone killing tens of thousands of people, including women and children, unless we are already in an all out global war where our very survival is at stake.
What is different between the American soldier and his or her enemy is that they care about civilians. They will give their lives to save a child. That is why I consider our side to be honorable in war and worthy of praise. Our people are the finest warriors in the world… but they do not discard their human decency.
Dale:
I concur with much of what you say. Fortunately we, of the west, have the luxury of those more humane options.
However, just because they are preferable does not mean we must commit ourselves to their limitations, nor somehow see other, more bloody, options as less honorable.
Was is horrible, and rightly so. Mitigating the horror often times may render it more likely, or more prolonged.
Laird,
The proper definition, at least the UN definition, does not stipulate intent to destroy an entire people. There was an international case on what constitutes ‘in part’ and it is quite possible that due to the large size of the populations of Germany and Japan, these three events totaling approximately 1/4 million significantly or even primarily women, children and elderly – remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen precisely because they were NOT part of a combat area – would not meet the percentage of the population definition.
The fact that it is close enough to be debatable means it is not being ‘bandied about’. Genocide does not automatically start at one million. It is about target selection and why. You may not know but we had a steady stream of nuclear bombs on line and could have dropped the next one within about a week and at close intervals from there on out. There was an active debate on whether to stockpile them and use them in a combined attack or drop them one at a time as they were ready for use. Target selection would likely have continued in a similar vein. I guess at what threshold the systematic annihilation of cities of civilian population becomes genocide is a debatable matter.
While I may include as ‘genocide’ acts that you do not, I also think that when an entire nation acting collectively commits total violence to another nation, they have invited a response administered collectively to them as a group. As far as I am concerned, the warrant for Dresden was issued on the night of night of Dec 29/30 of 1940. The Axis raised the stakes and the Allies covered the bet.
As for nuclear weapons in our arsenal, I stipulated never ‘initiate’, not never ‘use’. Clearly if we are facing attacks in our sovereign territory rather than interruptions to our appetites, they may be appropriate. But I would see us never initiating use of them for less than that and reserving use for only under the gravest threat. I think you ignored my point about food supply, etc. There are a lot of nukes about and popping the first one will probably set off many more. I know Strangelove is so 1960s, but . . . This also is probably a point of disagreement I have with Dale. I think even tactical, battle field nukes are a symbolic line far beyond their actual physical effect. I think they also should be reserved for the gravest threat. If China crossed into Siberia, it would be difficult to fault the Russians for using them but it could well open up the nuclear magazines.
Having it clearly understood that we won’t start but we will end a nuclear war is a useful and proven deterrence against any country for which their own survival matters. When that is in serious doubt then preemptive destruction of their nuclear capacity is important. While a nuclear device would be appropriate to consider when fighting a suicidal nuclear terror state, the amount of world wide, food chain destroying fallout generated by a burst big enough and positioned so as to delve into a very deep facility is . . . I’m actually at a loss, I can’t think of a way to describe how it would effect the entire congregation of life. But it would be a lasting effect. If it actually came to the point of using nukes, a very strong practical argument is that we would cost ourselves less in the long run by taking control of the area with conventional means long enough to drill down to set one off, underground test style. Gulf II demonstrated we can go and hold where we want, and underground facilities can’t be relocated while under attack.
I agree with Dale about the semantics of the admiral’s statement. The provocation that precipitates our (or somebody’s) action is a suicidal state determined to have nuclear weapons. The people who have pointed out the ongoing nature of our perpetual state of war with Iran over the last decades are correct. Perhaps the admiral could have stated it more accurately and less clearly.
His clearest and most accurate statement would be that closing the straits would be interpreted as a substantial escalation of the ongoing state of hostility between our nations. In light of Iran’s spoken and demonstrated foreign policy, them getting nukes is an act of aggression worthy of extreme resistance. Everything we do to prevent or end that is an act in an ongoing war. But Iran closing the straits is not a defensive act, it is an escalation.
Mid, I don’t understand your statement “Perhaps the admiral could have stated it more accurately and less clearly”. But whatever that means, in the field of diplomacy I don’t think that sacrificing clarity for accuracy (if that’s even possible) would be a good idea. As I said before, it is imperative that Iran understand our position. Frankly, substituting “substantial escalation of hostilities” for “act of war” would not be at all helpful. The former phrase allows for the possibility of “turning the other cheek” when push comes to shove; the latter does not. If it is truly the United States’ intention (which I believe to be the case) to use military force to keep the Straight open, we must ensure that Ahmadinejad understands that. Your formulation does not achieve that objective, and would be more likely, not less, to lead to armed conflict.
As to the initiation of the use of nuclear weapons, in reality I don’t think there is much to be gained from this debate; we are highly unlikely to do so, ever. But neither should we unilaterally forgo that option. There is no point in having these weapons if no one believes that we would use them under any circumstances. And if armed conflict in Iran should become necessary, and we get bogged down in a land war where we would stand to lose hundreds of thousands of troops, in my opinion the death of a few million Iranians instead is preferable. After all, we wouldn’t be in that situation unless the entire nation (and not just the religious and political elites) were supporting the war, in which case it would be indistinguishable from Dresden or Hiroshima. And that is neither “genocide” (disingenuous United Nations re-definitions of that word notwithstanding) nor a war crime.
Midwesterner: I do indeed share your worries about breaching the perceived line by using battlefield or tactical nukes. My reply in that case was pure pragmatism. If we were getting our arses whupped or were bogged down, the carefully targeted use of those weapons might seem preferable to Americans and it could be done without massive loss of civilian life, or at least as a percentage of enemy military loses.
it is also the case that I think getting ourselves into a scenario like this is rather unlikely. This thread is, after all, more about philosophical issues and semantics than it is about the real world.
I would, just to be technically fair, say that taking out deeply buried facilities does not a priori mean a great deal of fall out. It is possible to use a low yield deep penetrator that would not raise a huge cloud of debris into the stratosphere. The radioactive debris would remain at low levels and in the neighborhood. Bad if you live in the neighborhood, but not so bad a a classical air or surface burst if you are down wind.
it is still something that I’d rather not see us do unless the circumstances were exceedingly dire. There are other ways. New weaponry is able to fire deep penetrator bombs that come down like beads on a string, going down the same ‘hole’ and busting their way deep, deep underground.
If you can generate a good enough focused shock wave, you can cause spalling to the internal walls of the deep facility and turn the resident enemy combatants into personburger.
If someone has facilities kilometers underground with their own Closed Ecological Life Support System and nuclear power plant such that it can survive with no surface contact, then I’d rather we go in on the ground and seize it… because no one else has a working CELSS and I have a few uses I’d like to see it put to rather than blowing up the model 😉
Talk to most military folk. They will agree. Nuclear weapons have almost no practical use these days other than deterrence. Technology has passed them by.
Laird,
What I meant was that while ‘an act of war’ is colloquially understood to mean an act that starts a fight, that is not true in this situation. As Dale points our, it is not correct usage. At least not unless ones construes it to mean one of many acts in an ongoing war. As a diplomatic statement it is quite clear what it means in the way of potential consequences for one particular course they may take, but it does nothing to make clear the causal chain that drives our decision or remind Iran and the world how they might avoid all problems.
It is itself a retaliatory statement in response to a stated threat and puts us, the party defending the status quo, on our back foot. I would prefer a clear unequivocal statement that acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran will not be tolerated. At all. Make clear to the world that if Iran lets the matter drop, both their nuclear efforts and our response if it is needed, then so will we.
I agree with Dale on the semantics point but he created the appearance that he wants us to admit ‘we started it’. I want to make clear we did not.
You would like us to announce our threats clearly. I think it is of equal or greater importance that we announce their aggressions clearly.
And as for the use of nuclear weapons, I think the decision values that I laid out allow enough room to comprise a substantial deterrent without being casual enough to inspire any fears that a ‘cowboy president’ could use them for imperial goals and the responses that belief could inspire. As Nick M has just pointed out to me (we are discussing another topic in email), people who have not been to the US hold some pretty bizarre ideas about the people who live here.
Dale,
I hope indeed that we are sharing a merely philosophical exercise and discussion of semantics. But the world has a fairly consistent long term pattern that suggests this conversation could be more meaningful than we would like it to be. Being a rather substantially read blog, we are in a small way building or adjusting the way people think about this topic. I would like to see nuclear weapons usage never become a comfortable topic. And I certainly never want to see ‘glazing’ a state suggested for less than a significant nuclear attack on our sovereign territory. It’s that half-life arithmetic that gets to me.
On the underground facility point, I seem vaguely to recall sometime back reading that Iran was working to develop a facility that was in fact beyond the reach of anything we can deliver by air. Whether this included nuclear or not I do not recall.
I think there is a substantial psychological and diplomatic difference between dropping penetrators and drilling from the surface. One is a sudden attack raining down nuclear hell from the sky. Or at least it will be in the imaginations of generations raised in a nuclear limbo. But drilling down is a process that is far less threatening to anyone because it takes inclusively, control of the surface, substantial machinery, a good bit of time, is something we have a lot of experience with and has consequences that are extremely well studied and analyzed.
It would still be reacted to with outrage by the usual governments, but it would be seen more as an act of demolition in occupied territory than as an escalation to nuclear warfare. I think it is very dangerous to underestimate the importance of the psychological consequences of delivering anything nuclear by air or missile on what comes next in the world.
Interesting thread.
It seems like we are starting to wind down a bit now, so I’d like to thank the participants for an interesting and hopefully useful discussion.
I’d also toss out an extra pointer. Who recognizes the oblique literary reference made by the title of this article?
It rings no bells for me. But I can happily wait to hear until Laird has time to sort through his bric-a-brac in search of inspiration. In light of that other thread, it is kind of embarrassing to admit but except for purchases in the last ~8 years, all* of my books are in boxes in storage. And I haven’t been buying much. But the internet has taken up a lot of the slack.
*One exception to the books in storage. I kept out the OED. I couldn’t bear to not have that within easy reach.
Sorry, no inspiration from this quarter. Do we get a hint?
No takers?
It is a play on the very dark SF/war novel, “Use of Weapons” by Iain Banks.