Thursday, December 15, 2005
Strategic Question
Assume you are the leader of Israel. Your country has fought a half dozen wars in the 60 years of it's existence. Now the leader of a country, Iran, is calling for you to be "wiped off the map" and claims the Holocaust was a myth. The country's spiritual leader, and real power, seems to agree with the political leader. The country is also developing nuclear weapons. What do you do?
There are two important caveats. One, the leader may be blustering for domestic consumption. And two, mutual assured destruction (MAD) is off the table because your country is small enough that a first strike could destroy your ability to counter-attack.
What do you do?
There are two important caveats. One, the leader may be blustering for domestic consumption. And two, mutual assured destruction (MAD) is off the table because your country is small enough that a first strike could destroy your ability to counter-attack.
What do you do?
Comments:
<< Home
Honestly, what I do is rustle up support in the international community.
What really gets me though, is that this is not THAT different from Saddam and the Ba'ath Party? Here is my train of thought.
Put simply:
You have the President of Iran stating in a speech that Israel should be wiped off of the map. Iran has nuclear capabilities.
Saddam gave the order to gas over 150,000 Kurds. He was Hitler on a smaller scale. He also had nuclear capabilities.
Saddam acted.
Iran hasn't (yet).
Where is the difference? What ticks me off is that the European Community is acting all pissed off, stating that those remarks "weren't acceptable". Blah, Blah Blah. Why weren't they more proactive with Saddam? Maybe you can provide some clarification. Maybe I am missing something. Something just doesnt seem right.
But, yeah, I would muster support. I would NOT go into Iran alone. And not to knock the Republican Guard, but I think that Iran would give the attackers a run for their money.
Post a Comment
What really gets me though, is that this is not THAT different from Saddam and the Ba'ath Party? Here is my train of thought.
Put simply:
You have the President of Iran stating in a speech that Israel should be wiped off of the map. Iran has nuclear capabilities.
Saddam gave the order to gas over 150,000 Kurds. He was Hitler on a smaller scale. He also had nuclear capabilities.
Saddam acted.
Iran hasn't (yet).
Where is the difference? What ticks me off is that the European Community is acting all pissed off, stating that those remarks "weren't acceptable". Blah, Blah Blah. Why weren't they more proactive with Saddam? Maybe you can provide some clarification. Maybe I am missing something. Something just doesnt seem right.
But, yeah, I would muster support. I would NOT go into Iran alone. And not to knock the Republican Guard, but I think that Iran would give the attackers a run for their money.
<< Home
