Opposed Systems Design Comments

by: J.

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:40:49 +0000

That part of the article caught my eye as well, didn’t know quite how to address it but I recognized its truthiness. Great post in 2007, I will have to note that one.

by: J.

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:30:55 +0000

Agreed. I don’t go over to DNI to see his posts anymore, they’ve lost relevance. But he has, in the past, had a few good ideas - now lost amongst the trash heap he keeps building.

by: Wiggins

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:11:22 +0000

True, but Lind’s signal-to-noise ratio is asymptotically approaching 1. I’ve lost patience.

by: J.

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:07:00 +0000

The difference is that Lind can have, on occasion, rare moments of sanity where he does offer an interesting point of view that is different than the mainstream. But like Ralph Peters, the rare moments are separated by long rants of wild claims and exaggerations.

by: Ray

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:57:30 +0000

Could you clarify what you mean by Iran “stirring up even more trouble in the region.” It appears the US are Israel are the ones that have distabilized the region. In addition, isn’t it natural for Iran to ally itself with Hezbollah? Hezbollah would not exist except for the Israeli intervention/invasion in Lebanon. Its understandable that from a strategic viewpoint that one would want to take the “military option of the table,” but if “for every action there is a reaction,” how can we expect this to happen in light of our own actions in tandem with our dysfunctional relationship with Israel?

by: Wiggins

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:32:09 +0000

Barnett’s point from 2005 was that we really can’t stop Iran from developing the capability to produce a nuclear weapon, except for an extremely high risk military option that offers many down sides and few prospects for success.

I did not say it was in America’s interest to strike Iran. Point 4 was that becoming a nuclear power could make Iran even more of an activist power, stirring up even more trouble in the region because it felt secure from severe consequences for its actions.

Look, striking Iran is a very bad option. It plays to the hard-liners narrative that it is Iran vs. the world. I don’t advocate it. Go read some of the back posts on the blog. [1] That being said, there is a difference between not striking Iran and removing uncertainty from the Iranian decision calculus by explicitly taking the military option off the table. The manipulation of risk and uncertainty is an important tool for strategists. [2]

[1] http://opposedsystemsdesign.blogsome.com/2007/02/15/
[2] Schelling, Arms and Influence

by: Ray

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:55:33 +0000

Points 1, 2, and 3 are well taken. However, with point 4 you are assuming that it is in our interest to have a military strike against Iran. Perhaps you could explain how we benefit from this. In terms of the Barnett article, it’s difficult to even imagine Iran making a peace treaty with Israel. Our invasion/occupation of Iraq has only empowered the Shiites in the region and has at the same time empowered Iran. In addition, Iran is not going to give up its support for Hezbollah who are their fellow Shiites.

Since nuclear technology is a rather old technology at this point (60 years) and Iran is a oil-wealthy country with a highly educated sector of the population, can we really stop them from aquiring this technology?

by: Wiggins

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:55:37 +0000

Roy,

There are several potential answers.

1. Proliferation of nuclear weapons is dangerous, so we should limit it. It is plausible that the risk of a nuke being accidentally detonated increases as a function of how many nukes are in the world; therefore it makes sense to limit their spread.

2. There is an international law argument to be made that Iran, by flouting the NPT, undermines the stabilizing role these institutions play.

3. Iran becoming a nuclear power could spark a spasm of nuclear proliferation as Egypt and Saudi Arabia seek their own deterrent. There are some arguments that immature nuclear forces are more dangerous than mature ones since all the safeguards and C2 procedures haven’t been implemented yet. Thus, three new nuclear powers all jockeying for prestige while they work the kinks out of their arsenals is concerning.

4. Possessing nuclear weapons could embolden Iran to make life even more difficult for us because it would feel secure from any major military strikes.

Side note - you seem to be applying an oddly one-sided realist perspective to all this. If it’s reasonable that Iran would want nukes, why isn’t it reasonable that the existing powers wouldn’t want to stop them?

I’m not unsympathetic to your question, but Barnett gives a better argument for why we shouldn’t be stressing ourselves over Iran becoming a nuclear power. [1]

cheers,
W

[1] http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/ESQ0205BUSHADA_90

by: Ray

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:33:56 +0000

Question:

What is the problem with Iran having nuclear power? If the uS, Israel, Pakistan, etc. have it, why not Iran? Is this just a case of the “more powerful” ganging up on someone they don’t like? From what I understand, Iran (or Persia) has not invaded a country for 200 years. Compare that to the US and Israel…

by: Wiggins

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:17:28 +0100

I used to work with a jaded old Cold Warrior who joked that the most efficient way to bankrupt the USSR would have been to fill the Pentagon with all of our classified materials (totally unorganized) and allowed unlimited access to the public for a fee of $20/day. The Soviets would have sent an army of KGB agents in there every day for years trying to make sense of it all until they ran out of money.