Im still with you there. I just feel that it would be difficult to justify it to the international community. I think that there is a greater reason for intervention if it is based upon the removal of an oppressive government.
Israel doesn't have the strategic range to successfully carry out all of the strikes required. They lack long range strategic bombers and only have a handful of air refuelers.
Besides, Iran is more likely to get enough support from Russia and China to not have to worry about a united Arab response. Furthermore, the traditional power that would check an Iran aggression, Iraq, has been severely damaged over years of war. Not only that, but when you look at the change in the sectarian power in Iraq, they may even support Iran. Saudi Arabia hates Iran anyways, and Iran has a proxy army in South Lebbanon in the form of Hezzbolah. Egypt is weak due to the revolutions, same with Lybia. Syria as well is in a state of civil war. So, what united Arab response is likely to pose any credible threat?
Israel doesn't have the strategic range to successfully carry out all of the strikes required. They lack long range strategic bombers and only have a handful of air refuelers.
Would the US then fill in these gaps?
Is that a definite though? Russia and China might give a token support but more than that is debatable.
A little bit of short term instability (Libya) is more desirable than long term. Leaving Libya alone could have lead to a long term problem.
How so? Control of the party would have most likely stayed with in the family.
They were having a Civil War, and the rebels weren't doing that badly even without intervention. It's more likely that Libya would be a devastated warzone for the next decade or so, and we just shortened the amount of time it took. So we get more stability (and access to resources), and backing the "freedom fighters" makes the US look good to the first world. But toppling a totalitarian government has never been sufficient cause for any non-civil war in recorded history.
They were having a Civil War, and the rebels weren't doing that badly even without intervention. It's more likely that Libya would be a devastated warzone for the next decade or so, and we just shortened the amount of time it took.
Nor were they doing very well. They would not have been successful if the pro-Gaddafi armour hadn't been taken out by air strikes they would have been no where near as successful.
Also you have seen whats happening in Libya at the moment? Its hardly happy mondays nor does it look like a pro-US government will be in control. As it stands they are having problems disarming half of their forces and resorting order.
I read somewhere that Iran will probably continue their work until right before they have a bomb so they would technically not be breaking any treaties, but have something almost done, if needed.
Wikipedia No full test of a gun-type nuclear weapon had occurred before the "Little Boy" device was dropped over Hiroshima. The only test explosion of a nuclear weapon had been of an implosion-type weapon using plutonium as its fissionable material, on July 16, 1945 at the Trinity test.
But it's flowing. Your argument was that the west would rather have stability and gain more oil. Surely they should have done everything in their power to keep Gaddafi in power and get more oil rather than an unstable rebel coalition.
Iran can't use a nuke without starting World War III. Iran would have a single nuke. Using the nuke would instantly spend its leverage. It could also incur MAD by any victim nation's allies.
This is the equivalent of that scene in the Star Wars Ep4 theatrical re-release where Han Solo runs through the Death Star with blaster rifle in hand and stumbles into the barracks full of stormtroopers.
At best, Iran's nuclear program will start a new Cold War.
At best, Iran's nuclear program will start a new Cold War.
Eh, no more so than Pakistan and India is a new Cold War. Or North Korea getting nukes started a new Cold War. I'm doubtful that you would see that level tension or possibility of MAD.
Pakistan and India aren't exactly making the anti-West proclamations, are they? And North Korea is not a credible threat. Those are pretty shadowy comparisons.
Pakistan and India aren't exactly making the anti-West proclamations, are they? And North Korea is not a credible threat. Those are pretty shadowy comparisons.
Regarding Pakistan and India, I mean in terms of each other. In my opinion, they are currently the two countries most likely to enter some sort of nuclear exchange in the future. Additionally, if North Korea is not a credible threat, then why hasn't South Korea tried to unify? Has North Korea not shown nuclear capability? Have they not shown the ballistic missile capability?
For one, talks are about to begin regarding complete North Korean denuclearization. Nuclear capability is not the same as feasibility of aggression. Think about it: Best Korea launches nukes, and then what? We're talking about a country that is largely starving, unable to provide consistent electrical service to its populace, living a total mummer's farce for tourists. The threat of force is only as good as the sustainability of its follow-up. And North Korean ballistics tests have not had incredible results. As for reunification, what would South Korea gain? Sure, many families might be reunited, but South Korea would inherit a de facto welfare state that it does not have the means to support. It would also inherit a brainwashed, resistant populace.
North Korea has enough artillery pointed at Seoul and other major South Korean population centers to level them within minutes. And more importantly, they have a brainwashed populace willing to die for their leader. That is probably the most dangerous of all.
But, North Korea isn't trying to be the aggressors. Like I said earlier, they are playing the defensive game. It's about being a credible threat so that no one fucks with you like 2003 Iraq or Afghanistan.
Oh man, I took a class on the North/South Korean divide. Suffice it to say that while many people on both sides long for reunification, the logistics of it make it next to impossible at present. For starters consider the economics of it. West Germany is still financially behind East Germany, even after a couple of decades. Reunification would wreck the coffers of South Korea, after it has done so well in establishing itself in the global marketplace over the past decade or so. Also, I think that more North Korean troops would desert or defect than you seem to believe.
Comments
Besides, Iran is more likely to get enough support from Russia and China to not have to worry about a united Arab response. Furthermore, the traditional power that would check an Iran aggression, Iraq, has been severely damaged over years of war. Not only that, but when you look at the change in the sectarian power in Iraq, they may even support Iran. Saudi Arabia hates Iran anyways, and Iran has a proxy army in South Lebbanon in the form of Hezzbolah. Egypt is weak due to the revolutions, same with Lybia. Syria as well is in a state of civil war. So, what united Arab response is likely to pose any credible threat?
Is that a definite though? Russia and China might give a token support but more than that is debatable.
So we get more stability (and access to resources), and backing the "freedom fighters" makes the US look good to the first world. But toppling a totalitarian government has never been sufficient cause for any non-civil war in recorded history.
Also you have seen whats happening in Libya at the moment? Its hardly happy mondays nor does it look like a pro-US government will be in control. As it stands they are having problems disarming half of their forces and resorting order.
This is the equivalent of that scene in the Star Wars Ep4 theatrical re-release where Han Solo runs through the Death Star with blaster rifle in hand and stumbles into the barracks full of stormtroopers.
At best, Iran's nuclear program will start a new Cold War.
But, North Korea isn't trying to be the aggressors. Like I said earlier, they are playing the defensive game. It's about being a credible threat so that no one fucks with you like 2003 Iraq or Afghanistan.
Also, I think that more North Korean troops would desert or defect than you seem to believe.