Re: As A Leader What Would You Do?
 

There is one more option that doesn't appear in your poll, and I think this will be the 'real world' solution:

Secretly give your 'ally' whatever help they need to sabotage this country's research program (whether by airstrike or covert agent operations) and let them take the political heat for doing so.

Re: As A Leader What Would You Do?
 

And how many people have to die in a pre-emptive action, just because the States is too afraid of not having their big club with which to menace the smaller nations of the world? Or too afraid to let someone who isn't an ally have weapons of mass destruction? Who says the US should have weapons of mass destruction? I'd say you have as much a maniac leading you down there as a lot of these "religious fundamentalist" countries. After all, with all the religious stuff Bush spouts off, he could be classified as a religious fundamentalist!!

Now don't get me wrong, I think Iran and all those other nations like them are scary sh**. I also think they need taken out, and taken out hard. But not because of the paltry excuse that they're developing nukes. No.

Re: As A Leader What Would You Do?
 

What country has the US menaced with nukes?
I'm sure North Korea FEELS menaced, but KJI is likely menaced by scary bedtime stories.

Ummmm yes. You're fine with your enemies having nukes pointed at you?

Seeing as we were the first to invent the "bomb", it's a pandora's box kinda thing. Once you got them, they themselves say you can have WMDs... until someone bigger gets brave and tries to take them from you.

Re: As A Leader What Would You Do?
 

One of the current Iranian president's big policies is:
"Isreal should be wiped off the map."

I think that's a good enough reason to keep him from getting nukes..

Re: As A Leader What Would You Do?
 

Iran, for one.

It's a parity thing. You have nukes, they have nukes, no one will use them. You have nukes, they don't have nukes, you might just decide to use them.

My point was that the US has them and trys to keep others from getting them. Your leader's stated reason for trying to stop these nations from acquiring nukes is to protect US interests...but in reality it's so the US has the biggest club whenever they want to go somewhere and do something in someone else's backyard... The threat of use is used as an offensive weapon, not defensive which is the only way nukes should be used.

I wonder what the US would do if Canada suddenly decided we wanted to maintain a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Would you start threatening us to? Can you see how the rest of the world views it, when one nation trys to create nuclear weapons and the US starts making threats and throwing it's weight around? The rest of the world begins to worry a little bit, since everyone can posit that some day, the US might try to go after their country...

Many other countries have nuclear weapons, besides the US. Mostly US allies. Do you see them threatening other nations with their nuclear weapons like the US has recently threatened Iran? No. We respect the sovreignty of other nations, the right for them to determine their own destiny. We don't try to force others into our way of thinking. Of course, if they take offensive action against another sovreign nation, the rest of the world, not just the US, would put a stop to it. That's all well and good. But don't interfere when someone hasn't done anything.

It'll never happen. If Iran was stupid enough to nuke Israel, Iran would be turned into a glowing piece of glass. They know this as well as anyone. Their "big policy" is nothing more than propaganda to appease the portion of their populace that is violent.

Lets just say that they were allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Lets also say they nuked Israel. Israel would nuke them right back, and Iran would no longer exist after Israel and the rest of the world was done with them. Even the violent Iranians aren't so stupid that they can't see that.

NOTE: I'm not saying that I don't think action against Iran is necessary. Personally, I think they should be bombed back to the stone age, where they'd still be if it wasn't for the "infidel" West.

What I have stated above is what a lot of people will think, and what represents the other side of the arguement. In other words, I'm curious what you think is the justification for taking out Iran. Essentially, I'm playing the devils advocate.

What I do not support is sending troops in, that'd be doomed to failure from the get-go. Systematic and severe bombing...that'd work. When an entire religion is dedicated to destroying your culture, race and religion, you must wipe them out. It may sound extreme, but it'd work and probably, after a while, make for a more peaceful world.

I know, I have some scary opinions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

Re: As A Leader What Would You Do?
 

I would hope that we would never have to go after Iran. And this is not a topic about Iraq or the mistakes made there.


As for the comment about Bush being a religious fanatic, well if you believe that then I have a small moon on the far side of Hellion to sell you.

Re: As A Leader What Would You Do?
 

I've no friendship for those fundamentalist freaks, but I'm rather thrown off by the whole thread subject http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif
And so the totally faulty idea of "preventive action" is resurfacing, whoosh, some never learn ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
Also just remembered that normally everyone gang up against the MEGA EVIL EMPIRE ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif

Re: As A Leader What Would You Do?
 

And what makes a mega evil empire? In our case, the US would be that empire because we have the most points, not because of any leadership style or military might issue.

Running our own empires gives us a unique point of view that many arm chair warriors never get. We have run an empire so wee do know what a threat can and cannot be. As imperial leaders we have faced such challenges before and know that diplomacy is only one tool in our arsenal, a rather weak tool, and sometimes the best tool is simply to leave a threat alone to burn itself out.

Real world issues such as Iran do worry me, but like I said, I do not believe we have the right to tell them that they cannot have nukes when we have aloud North Korea and other nations that were once considered third world countries to have them. Now look at them.. Pakastand, India, and China are all economic power houses on the verge of super powers in their own neck of the world.

I hope that the leaders of Iran understand that there is more to life then killing.

Re: As A Leader What Would You Do?
 

This issue with Iran and their potential for Nukes is such a completely moronic debate.

Some points to consider here, to back this statement, are as follows:

1) The United States was the first nation to develop and use such weapons, admittedly. And the first to realize the real HORROR that using them unleashes. Don't kid yourself into believing that we as a nation would ever really use them again, despite all the noise about doing so over the past 6 decades. Despite our flaws as a nation ( and I challenge you to show me a nation that doesn't have any flaws ), we're actually a mature enough people to not use, and try to restrict the use of, Nuclear Weapons.

2) Does anyone truly believe that a nation like Iran, with it's long and repeated history of religious fanaticism and socio-political violence, should have Nuclear Weapons ??? A nation who threatens to destroy another nation simply because they worship something/someone different ??? A nation that has proven time and again it's capacity to act impulsively and capriciously ???

3) Iran is acting like a tantrumental small child, who may just have figured out a way to get it's hands on a high-powered gun just like some of the older kids have. A child that is quite willing and eager to shoot said gun just to prove, if only to the other small kids, it's one of the big kids now.

4) Honestly, I believe that NO ONE should have Nuclear Weapons !!! To me their tantamount to having a barrel of dynamite next to the fireplace in a log cabin. One stray spark and their goes the old home and hearth. That said there are, realistically speaking, some nations in particular who just don't have the moral or ethical responsibility to posses such weapons. If Switzerland were developing them, few if any people would fuss. Why ??? Because they've proven themselves to be a mature nation politically. The same could also be said of Canada, or Belgium, or Australia, or a number of other nations. Not because of their size or age or capabilities, but because they're smart enough and mature enough to NOT use them. Who can honestly compare the behavior of Iran to any of these nations and say that Iran is ready to posses Nuclear Weapons ???

5) One constant argument I hear is that Iran would never really use them, because if they did other nations would bomb them back to the stone-age in response. How blindly naive is that logic ??? Assuming they would even consider the responses of the nations of the world, once the Nuclear Weapons have been used it's really too late to do much more than gasp in horror and get mad. The damage is done, and not just to the intended target, but the world as a whole. It doesn't matter if it's US interests, or Middle East interests, or whoever's interst - we as a species are threatened at that point. Why do you think, even during the tumultuous height of the Cold War, nobody anywhere ever pushed that button ??? They knew it'd hurt them as much as anyone else. Add religious fanaticism to the mix, with a belief that dying for your cause will get you into heaven, and the story reads quite a bit differently. Getting hurt back or as a result of your own actions simply makes you a martyr to your cause !!! Thus, cautionary thought goes out the window. Take a deep and honset look at the history of the Middle East if you doubt this in any way.

Re: As A Leader What Would You Do?
 

To be honest, a single nuke would not damage the world as a whole very much, if at all. The Middle East wouldn't be a good place to be, and wherever the prevailing winds drag the fallout also wouldn't be a nice place to be. But over here in North America, I don't think we'd see any measurable effect.

Look at all the nuclear testing that has been done. Atmospheric testing, underground testing, ground level testing, underwater testing...

You say the US was the first to know the horror of the weapons. Probably true. Also understood the effects, besides the immediate "ka-boom" effect of nukes, fallout, etc. And yet...the US continued testing nukes for decades! This doesn't seem horribly mature, given what nuclear fallout can do...

That said, with the number of tests that have been done in over the past 60 years (Think Bikini Atoll), another single nuke will not damage the rest of the world significantly, especially since it's guaranteed to not be a monster.