# What needs to be done about rogue states?



## Kylepl (May 29, 2012)

In this thread I'd love to hear people's opinions about what needs to be done about rogue states such as Iran, North Korea etc.  These countries are always in the news for shooting off missiles and developing their nuclear research and therefore are of great importance to modern conflicts.


----------



## JBS (May 29, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> In this thread I'd love to hear people's opinions about what needs to be done about rogue states such as Iran, North Korea etc. These countries are always in the news for shooting off missiles and developing their nuclear research and therefore are of great importance to modern conflicts.


Your thoughts?


----------



## Mac_NZ (May 29, 2012)

Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 29, 2012)

Woah, big question. Homework/essay question, by chance?

Thoughts later.


----------



## AWP (May 29, 2012)

If diplomacy fails then the ensuing war must be total and complete. Anything else, half measures, are a waste of blood and treasure.


----------



## Kylepl (May 29, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Woah, big question. Homework/essay question, by chance?
> 
> Thoughts later.


No not an essay question, I just want to hear what people think!


----------



## Kylepl (May 29, 2012)

JBS said:


> Your thoughts?


Personally, I think at this point in time diplomacy and sanction shave failed against both North Korea and Iran and I also think that the world needs to stop standing by watching these rogue states and extremist countries develop nuclear arms.  Everyone knows that both are bullshitting us when they say that the uranium they are producing is only for electrical purposes.  I think that the only way to stop these countries without creating another war in the middle east or in the Korean peninsula is to send in SF teams from willing countries to sabotage their nuclear efforts.  If it is done without compromise, both NK and Iran would have their suspicions on who did it but they would never know.  And it wouldn't matter if they knew anyways because they don't have many friends, so no one would be willing to back them in a war against the U.S.A., the UK etc.

*That's my opinion on the issue but I'd really like to hear other viewpoints. *


----------



## TH15 (May 29, 2012)

I highly doubt sending SF teams disrupting nuclear efforts would deter any of them. Just look at what the Israelis have done- whacking Iran's scientists and all. It hasn't stopped them from developing their program.

On the other hand, I don't think it's any of our business what they do in _their_ country. If it affects us, meaning the United States, or in your case, Canada, then okay- I can understand unilateral action. However, neither NK nor Iran has shown that they can disrupt our way of life via nukes. I would rather monitor them in the meantime.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 29, 2012)

Really?

Let's see: Iran has state sponsored terrorism links. 

That means they have "non-attached" assholes, that if they toss a nuke together, can go "hey, you can have this, it just needs to go off in the US" and those terrorist entities would fucking prostrate before Allah because their wildest wish just came true.

NK's got a metric shitpile of batshit crazy people within its borders, and it wouldn't take much of a stretch for them to call up *insert list of US hating entity's here* and tell them the same shit.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 29, 2012)

TH15 said:


> I highly doubt sending SF teams disrupting nuclear efforts would deter any of them. Just look at what the Israelis have done- whacking Iran's scientists and all. It hasn't stopped them from developing their program.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't think it's any of our business what they do in _their_ country. If it affects us, meaning the United States, or in your case, Canada, then okay- I can understand unilateral action. However, neither NK nor Iran has shown that they can disrupt our way of life via nukes. I would rather monitor them in the meantime.


 
Mulitlateral action is usually better IMHO but Iran does present a real threat. It all stems from Iranian nationalism and a want to be like the great Persian empire again. With nukes they'd be a direct threat to the Middle East and ergo to energy security. I doubt they would use any nukes against the US because it would take away from their victim mentality vis a vis the Great Satan rhetoric but they would be to US allies.



Freefalling said:


> If diplomacy fails then the ensuing war must be total and complete. Anything else, half measures, are a waste of blood and treasure.


 
The issue is really determining when diplomacy has failed and when it's appropriate to declare it as failed.



Kylepl said:


> Personally, I think at this point in time diplomacy and sanction shave failed against both North Korea and Iran and I also think that the world needs to stop standing by watching these rogue states and extremist countries develop nuclear arms. Everyone knows that both are bullshitting us when they say that the uranium they are producing is only for electrical purposes. I think that the only way to stop these countries without creating another war in the middle east or in the Korean peninsula is to send in SF teams from willing countries to sabotage their nuclear efforts. If it is done without compromise, both NK and Iran would have their suspicions on who did it but they would never know. And it wouldn't matter if they knew anyways because they don't have many friends, so no one would be willing to back them in a war against the U.S.A., the UK etc.
> 
> *That's my opinion on the issue but I'd really like to hear other viewpoints. *


 
DPRK already has nukes, may I suggest you keep up with the news. DPRK could lay waste to South Korea if provoked. They'd get their arses kicked afterwards but if they were to strike first they'd do a shitload of damage.


----------



## TH15 (May 29, 2012)

I agree with you on the proud Persian empire part. I really don't believe that Iran would use them unless they were seriously provoked and their existence was threatened. I was watching an interview with Robert Baer recently and he went on to say that Iran is not suicidal- they won't do anything that would cause serious harm to themselves.

Are they really a threat to energy security, or do they just like to make us _think _that they're threatening our energy security?


----------



## fox1371 (May 30, 2012)

I think that as long as our defensive capabilities exceed the enemies offensive capabilities, we shouldn't even mess with it.  Let everyone destroy themselves.  What good is fighting a war overseas when we can't even keep people from entering the country illegally?  I'm not worried about nuclear warheads at all.  I'm confident that we can eliminate them before they would ever strike US soil.  What I'm worried about, is the guy that gets into the country and decides to start blowing up civilian population centers.

Here's my perspective...it's a big chess game.  What I'm worried America is going to do, is use all of it's pieces to mount a vicious attack, and forget to leave some pieces behind to defend the king.  It's the easiest way to lose.  You do it because you think you have the upper hand and then that one piece gets behind you to end the game.


----------



## Kylepl (May 30, 2012)

Another thing I want to point out about the Iranian issue though is that if Iran does get nuclear weapons, Israel has said that they would attack Iran and Iran's president has said back that he wants to get rid of Israel by any means necessary.  Don't any of you think that if Iran and Israel were to go to war and Iran started winning that the U.S.A. would back up Israel? And who knows who would back up Iran!? Could have a crisis on our hands, no?


----------



## fox1371 (May 30, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> Another thing I want to point out about the Iranian issue though is that if Iran does get nuclear weapons, Israel has said that they would attack Iran and Iran's president has said back that he wants to get rid of Israel by any means necessary. Don't any of you think that if Iran and Israel were to go to war and Iran started winning that the U.S.A. would back up Israel? And who knows who would back up Iran!? Could have a crisis on our hands, no?


Hence the reason we should let them be.  Does the US really want to involve themselves in a war between Iran and Israel?  I understand that Israel is an ally, however they're an ally so that we can attempt to maintain stability in the region.  As soon a full war breaks out, our interests are virtually mute in my opinion.  If they want to blow each other to pieces let them.  I don't see any reason American lives should be sacrificed for their personal war.


----------



## TH15 (May 30, 2012)

I think you do have to take into consideration how much clout AIPAC has in our political system. I worry we could be dragged into something simply based on how many members of Congress are connected to them. We need to be pro-American first and foremost.


----------



## Scotth (May 30, 2012)

I would have to agree with Fox and TH15.  I think our alliance with Israel is pretty much a one sided affair and every time I hear a politician try to justify a course of action by the US as good for Israel national security I have a real problem with that thinking. 

Nuclear aspirations are an issue but I don't think it's in our national interest to go to war with a nation over it.  If anything becoming a nuclear power tends to make a nation a more responsible player in the world.  Everyone thought the end of the world was coming when India and Pakistan went nuclear.  If anything the situation has been more stable.  Yes they have clashes and yes they still hate each other but things never get to far out of hand because there are consequence.

They're is also consequences for handing nuclear material off to terrorist.  If there is a nuclear event we will know where the material came from and any nation is going to know the consequences will be severe for any nuclear event carried out on American or Israeli soil and I just don't see that happening.

For the same reason I think the star wars plan has been a huge financial boondoggle. 

Mutual assured destruction is still just as valid today as it was during the cold war and applies just as much to Russia as it does to Iran or NK.


----------



## JBS (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> Personally, I think at this point in time diplomacy and sanction shave failed against both North Korea and Iran and I also think that the world needs to stop standing by watching these rogue states and extremist countries develop nuclear arms. Everyone knows that both are bullshitting us when they say that the uranium they are producing is only for electrical purposes.


 
The (former) head of the Mossad- a highly decorated veteran and arguably the most qualified expert in the region- would not agree, as he has come out publicly stating his assessment after decades of being at the helm of one of the most capable intelligence outfits on earth is that Iran is not going to be a threat to Israel or the region.  That said, I hate the Iranian regime, but I would be a fool to ignore the head of Mossad.



> I think that the only way to stop these countries without creating another war in the middle east or in the Korean peninsula is to send in SF teams from willing countries to sabotage their nuclear efforts. If it is done without compromise, both NK and Iran would have their suspicions on who did it but they would never know.


 
The size of the QRF on standby for those kinds of operations would have to be the size of half the USMC, as underestimating Iranian response would be catastrophic in the global public eye.  Having an SOF hit get rolled up by the likes of Iran would -besides the potential loss of some of our best- make for another RQ170 situation x 1,000.   Clandestine sabotage that is also deniable is made tougher by the logistics and distances involved, and also by the fact that Iran may have hardened these facilities.  I also read one account that suggested or implied they may have been seeking foreign help in doing so.



> And it wouldn't matter if they knew anyways because they don't have many friends, so no one would be willing to back them in a war against the U.S.A., the UK etc.


 
This sounds like a good argument for cruise missiles and precision munitions/bunker busting bombs, in my opinion.

Great topic, BTW.


----------

