Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Chuck Krautshammer: "Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent if you use them often"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 177
    More: Stupid, Charles Krauthammer, pre-emptive strike, North Vietnam, Fareed Zakaria, Leonid Brezhnev, mullahs, Rafsanjani, jihadists  
•       •       •

1404 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Aug 2012 at 7:35 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-31 04:17:16 AM  
Dear Chuck Krautshammer,

While we, the rational people of the world, understand that in the current geopolitical climate of posturing between multinational alliances and superpowers, that nuclear weapons possession and development are necessary for the continuing security of the western world, we would suggest that you kindly SHUT THE fark UP and not promote the idea that the use of the most horrific, and devastating weapons mankind have ever developed should be used on a regular basis, or even used at all. There are reasons we have such things as game theory, mutually assured destruction and limited nuclear utilization theories.

So, to reinterate: SHUT THE fark UP, and go die in a fire if you think Nuclear Weapons should be used.

Sincerely,

The rational people of the world.
 
2012-08-31 04:58:43 AM  

BronyMedic: The rational people of the world.


It is weird. The headline doesnt really align with the article.
The article argued that it is rational for israel to bomb iran to stop iran from getting nukes. In general, I have no problem with that. I really dont think the world would be a better place if Iran had nukes. Iran does not play nice with others.

I agreed with his comparison in how Iran was different than USSR and that Iran would possibly actually use the bomb against tel aviv.

But I dont understand the farking headline of the article.
Is he implying that israel is actually deterring anyone from nuking israel ?? LOL
Israel nukes are a perfect deterrence against a non-nuke attack by any of their neighbors.
Israel: attack us with massive numbers of men and materials and we will nuke your forces and your capital.
TADA deterence

but charles is completely correct, Iran would not fear a counter strike from Israel if Iran nuked Israel first.
Iran: bye bye jews.
Israel: fark! (nukes Qom and Tehran) fark! (nukes mecca) fark! we are all still dead.

so yah, deterrence against iran wont work.
deterrence doesnt work against crazy people

all of this is moot
israel will bomb bomb iran and remove the threat before it gets to the point where iran has nukes.

iran: we are building nukes
israel: BOOOM - sorry, we didnt really mean to blow up your nuke factory
iran: hissie fit and more of the same
the rest of the muslim world: saber rattle
the rest of the world: (thanks jews!!!) cough cough you really shouldnt have done that (but thanks!!!!)
 
2012-08-31 05:03:06 AM  
Completely absent from this article: Any sign of Charles Krauthammer advocating the use of nuclear weapons.
 
2012-08-31 05:05:53 AM  
Krautshammer? I don't get it.

And subby don't put things in quotes if they aren't in the article please, unless it's a reference I don't get then please let me in on the joke.

Chuck's premise is that the mullahs are crazies hell bent on the destruction of Israel and don't care if their country or the world goes down with it. You know Chuck, it's more than likely that Iran wants a nuke to deter Israel, the US, or anyone else from preemptively bombing them. It's worked well for North Korea, Pakistan, India, and oh yeah Israel and the US.


Now go DIAF.
 
2012-08-31 05:19:22 AM  
The Islamic Republic sees itself as an instrument of its own brand of shiate millenarianism - the messianic return of the "hidden Imam."

A nation that thinks itself favored by God and eagerly awaits the return of their messiah?

How silly!
 
2012-08-31 06:11:14 AM  
This is why Jesusland is a bad idea.
 
2012-08-31 07:05:34 AM  
subby, you simpering, slack-jawed mouth breather, that's not what he said. He said the classic deterrence argument doesn't work for three reasons:

(1) The nature of the regime.
(2) The nature of the grievance.
(3) The nature of the target.

And while I'm firmly on the side of people who think bombing Iran is a terrible idea, he makes valid points, especially point #3. If the goal is the eradication of Israel, it's only going to take one bomb. Iran could decide the response from the US is worth the risk. It would be a stupid decision, but it's still one they could make.
 
2012-08-31 07:40:42 AM  
Yes yes, Iran is run by war mongering madmen even though they never start wars and Israel is very special and we need to cater to their paranoia because they're so special.
 
2012-08-31 07:40:48 AM  
i.imgur.com
WHARGARBLL WHARGARBLL
 
2012-08-31 07:41:10 AM  

fickle floridian: Completely absent from this article: Any sign of Charles Krauthammer advocating the use of nuclear weapons.


True, what he is adovacating is that the idea of nuclear deterrent does not work, and that only open war with rouge nations(HINT HINT IRAN) will protect America from nations that are rational actors. So it's still moronic since MADD as been proven to work again and again and again.
 
2012-08-31 07:42:25 AM  

Lsherm: If the goal is the eradication of Israel, it's only going to take one bomb.


No.

Iran could decide the response from the US is worth the risk.

The response would come from Israel, because they would still be standing and they have nuke equipped subs.

It would be a stupid decision, but it's still one they could make.

There's literally nothing in it for them.
 
2012-08-31 07:43:53 AM  
Krauthammer is german for kraut hammer
 
2012-08-31 07:46:21 AM  
Charles Krauthammer will not stand idly by while Iran threatens Israel.
 
2012-08-31 07:48:28 AM  
The reason countries like Iran want nukes is (and Israel, like every other country knows this) to immunise themselves against any serious threat of invasion/attack. Working nukes = impossible to threaten. Look at Best Korea and Pakistan, hell look at Israel itself.. the option of another state launching open war on them went away.

That's not to say it is a good thing for every country to have them, it may be a terrible thing, but lets not lie to ourselves about why they want them, even if you feel the urge to lie to others.
 
2012-08-31 07:49:14 AM  

namatad: The article argued that it is rational for israel to bomb iran to stop iran from getting nukes. In general, I have no problem with that. I really dont think the world would be a better place if Iran had nukes. Iran does not play nice with others.


Wars since 1980
Iran: 1
US: 3

It gets uglier if you start counting undeclared military actions like Grenada and Libya. Iran likes to beat it's chest on the world stage but when it comes to not playing nice with others, Iran is far from the top of the list.
 
2012-08-31 07:49:49 AM  
I guess he doesn't realize there's another country in the world with a lot of ICBM's capable of striking US soil.
 
2012-08-31 07:50:12 AM  

Lsherm: subby, you simpering, slack-jawed mouth breather, that's not what he said. He said the classic deterrence argument doesn't work for three reasons:

(1) The nature of the regime.
(2) The nature of the grievance.
(3) The nature of the target.

And while I'm firmly on the side of people who think bombing Iran is a terrible idea, he makes valid points, especially point #3. If the goal is the eradication of Israel, it's only going to take one bomb. Iran could decide the response from the US is worth the risk. It would be a stupid decision, but it's still one they could make.


You're a-herrpin' and a-derpin' pretty hard this morning.
 
2012-08-31 07:52:14 AM  

fickle floridian: Completely absent from this article: Any sign of Charles Krauthammer advocating the use of nuclear weapons.


I dont get it either. This must be another thread thats all troll and no content.

Hes saying that nuclear deterrence wont work on crazy people lik Mr. Dinnerplate.
 
2012-08-31 07:54:25 AM  
Well, that's it, then. Nuke Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. Show them how nukes REALLY work. Then every two or three years thereafter, toss another nuke at some other developing country that doesn't have nukes of their own yet, just to prove the point. Eventually, America will be the only irradiated place on Earth, truly proving American Exceptionalism.
 
2012-08-31 07:55:05 AM  

starsrift: Well, that's it, then. Nuke Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. Show them how nukes REALLY work. Then every two or three years thereafter, toss another nuke at some other developing country that doesn't have nukes of their own yet, just to prove the point. Eventually, America will be the only NON-irradiated place on Earth, truly proving American Exceptionalism.


FTFM, obviously.
 
2012-08-31 07:55:50 AM  

farkityfarker: I guess he doesn't realize there's another country in the world with a lot of ICBM's capable of striking US soil.


I think a Venn diagram would be helpful for you.

Hes not advocating disarmament. Hes saying sometimes deterrence works, sometimes not.
 
2012-08-31 07:56:39 AM  

BronyMedic: Dear Chuck Krautshammer,

While we, the rational people of the world, understand that in the current geopolitical climate of posturing between multinational alliances and superpowers, that nuclear weapons possession and development are necessary for the continuing security of the western world, we would suggest that you kindly SHUT THE fark UP and not promote the idea that the use of the most horrific, and devastating weapons mankind have ever developed should be used on a regular basis, or even used at all. There are reasons we have such things as game theory, mutually assured destruction and limited nuclear utilization theories.

So, to reinterate: SHUT THE fark UP, and go die in a fire if you think Nuclear Weapons should be used.

Sincerely,

The rational people of the world.


Well you said it better than I could so, pretty much this.
 
2012-08-31 07:56:59 AM  

Jackson Herring: Charles Krauthammer will not stand idly by while Iran threatens Israel.


Well played sir.
 
2012-08-31 07:57:08 AM  

starsrift: starsrift: Well, that's it, then. Nuke Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. Show them how nukes REALLY work. Then every two or three years thereafter, toss another nuke at some other developing country that doesn't have nukes of their own yet, just to prove the point. Eventually, America will be the only NON-irradiated place on Earth, truly proving American Exceptionalism.

FTFM, obviously.


Still doesnt make sense.
 
2012-08-31 07:57:37 AM  

Lsherm: If the goal is the eradication of Israel


So is the goal the eradication of Israel? Certainly Ahmadinejad has rattled his saber a bit and Iran does not recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel but there is a lot of distance between "we do not recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel and it will pass from the pages of history" and "we're going to nuke the shiat out of the Jews the first chance we get".

/cue mistranslated speeches
 
2012-08-31 07:58:06 AM  

Animatronik: farkityfarker: I guess he doesn't realize there's another country in the world with a lot of ICBM's capable of striking US soil.

I think a Venn diagram would be helpful for you.

Hes not advocating disarmament. Hes saying sometimes deterrence works, sometimes not.


With absolutely no historical evidence. In fact, history shows him to completely incorrect. He's relying on racists and dullards to believe than Iranians are insane and not playing geopolitics as usual.
 
2012-08-31 07:58:55 AM  

Animatronik: Hes not advocating disarmament. Hes saying sometimes deterrence works, sometimes not.


Real world example of when deterrence hasn't worked?
 
2012-08-31 07:59:54 AM  

Lsherm: subby, you simpering, slack-jawed mouth breather, that's not what he said. He said the classic deterrence argument doesn't work for three reasons:

(1) The nature of the regime.
(2) The nature of the grievance.
(3) The nature of the target.

And while I'm firmly on the side of people who think bombing Iran is a terrible idea, he makes valid points, especially point #3. If the goal is the eradication of Israel, it's only going to take one bomb. Iran could decide the response from the US is worth the risk. It would be a stupid decision, but it's still one they could make.


You're argument is terrible and unfounded. Iran is a rational regional actor. Iran would not risk giving WMDs to a irrational actor because it would be easily traceable back to Iran. The nature of the grievance is found only in the heads of neo-cons and the two top men in the Israeli government. The nature of the target makes it impossible that an air strike of any size would knock out Iran's refining abilities. There would need to be a followup invasion to ensure all sites are destroyed, and Israel could not handle the retaliation that such an invasion would bring since it's army is defensive not offensive.

You have no idea about real international politics, warfare, or history.
 
2012-08-31 08:00:20 AM  
Never allow insane people to have weapons.

For Iran, the very existence of a Jewish state on Muslim land is a crime, an abomination, a cancer with which no negotiation, no coexistence, no accommodation is possible.
 
2012-08-31 08:01:24 AM  
www.deviantart.com
 
2012-08-31 08:02:25 AM  

WTF Indeed: Iran is a rational regional actor.


What's more their own leader has said nuclear weapons are incompatible with Islam. Which is an issue no one ever really wants to deal with.
 
2012-08-31 08:08:25 AM  

WhyteRaven74: WTF Indeed: Iran is a rational regional actor.

What's more their own leader has said nuclear weapons are incompatible with Islam. Which is an issue no one ever really wants to deal with.


Iran with a nuke would stabilize, not destabilize the Middle East. Right now it is two nuclear powers (Israel and us) dictating to non-nuclear powers. That is an inherently unstable relationship.
 
2012-08-31 08:08:45 AM  
There are not enough heart attacks in this world.
 
2012-08-31 08:09:22 AM  
themoderatevoice.com
 
2012-08-31 08:12:26 AM  

GAT_00:

Iran with a nuke would stabilize, not destabilize the Middle East. Right now it is two nuclear powers (Israel and us) dictating to non-nuclear powers. That is an inherently unstable relationship.


This, ladies and gentlemen, is why children shouldn't be left alone with a computer.
 
2012-08-31 08:14:03 AM  

Animatronik: farkityfarker: I guess he doesn't realize there's another country in the world with a lot of ICBM's capable of striking US soil.

I think a Venn diagram would be helpful for you.

Hes not advocating disarmament. Hes saying sometimes deterrence works, sometimes not.


Of course nuclear weapons are a deterrence. That's why Iran wants them. They're currently surrounded on three sides by large US military installations.
 
2012-08-31 08:14:23 AM  

smitty04: [themoderatevoice.com image 600x523]


That cartoon nicely captures why nukes work as a deterrent.
 
2012-08-31 08:14:55 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: namatad: The article argued that it is rational for israel to bomb iran to stop iran from getting nukes. In general, I have no problem with that. I really dont think the world would be a better place if Iran had nukes. Iran does not play nice with others.

Wars since 1980
Iran: 1
US: 3

It gets uglier if you start counting undeclared military actions like Grenada and Libya. Iran likes to beat it's chest on the world stage but when it comes to not playing nice with others, Iran is far from the top of the list.


And Iran didnt even start theirs.
 
2012-08-31 08:15:06 AM  
I find the author lacks serious perspective.

The threat of Iran using nuclear weapons on Israel is one thing. The threat of the USA retaliating with nuclear strikes on Iran is another. We're really, really, really good at launching delivery systems like Minuteman and Trident missiles, plus using thermonuclear warheads on targets. WE have had lots of practice.
 
2012-08-31 08:16:49 AM  
Where did this idea that Israel could be wiped out with one Iranian nuke come from? Did I miss something? Is there evidence that Iran is working on a thermonuclear Tsar Bomba? Because otherwise any nukes they could develop soon would be in the few-dozen kilotons range. That's not even enough to wipe out an entire city. But please, do go on with the warmongering pro-Israel hyperbole.
 
2012-08-31 08:16:55 AM  
i47.tinypic.com

Of course, the whole point of nuclear deterrence is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?
 
2012-08-31 08:17:03 AM  

WTF Indeed: fickle floridian: Completely absent from this article: Any sign of Charles Krauthammer advocating the use of nuclear weapons.

True, what he is adovacating is that the idea of nuclear deterrent does not work, and that only open war with rouge nations(HINT HINT IRAN) will protect America from nations that are rational actors. So it's still moronic since MADD as been proven to work again and again and again.


img.photobucket.com

i292.photobucket.com

Not sure if trolling or just a bad speller.

AAanyways, every time someone says Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has been proven not to work, or makes MAD out to be some sort of buffoonery, I remind people that no matter how misguided a theory it is, holding a large stockpile of nuclear weapons you never intend to use in order to prevent a war between nuclear states has never been proven not to work.

/And Krauthammer is a dope.
 
2012-08-31 08:18:00 AM  

AirForceVet: I find the author lacks serious perspective.


well yes, he does experience life from a literal different perspective than most people
 
2012-08-31 08:18:39 AM  

skipjack: GAT_00:

Iran with a nuke would stabilize, not destabilize the Middle East. Right now it is two nuclear powers (Israel and us) dictating to non-nuclear powers. That is an inherently unstable relationship.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why children shouldn't be left alone with a computer.


You're just mad because Iran having a nuclear weapon would immediately shut down any neocon plan to invade the nation.
 
2012-08-31 08:18:42 AM  

skipjack: GAT_00:

Iran with a nuke would stabilize, not destabilize the Middle East. Right now it is two nuclear powers (Israel and us) dictating to non-nuclear powers. That is an inherently unstable relationship.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why children shouldn't be left alone with a computer.


No, it's the measured view of history. The most recent example of this is India/Pakistan. Since their split in the 40's, they have been at war 4 official times and 1 unofficial. Since the both sides have obtained nuclear weapons there have been zero wars, the longest stretch of peace in the region since 1947. Rational actors will not risk the elimination of their nation over a land dispute or trade war.
 
2012-08-31 08:20:09 AM  

andrewagill: Not sure if trolling or just a bad speller.

AAanyways, every time someone says Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has been proven not to work, or makes MAD out to be some sort of buffoonery, I remind people that no matter how misguided a theory it is, holding a large stockpile of nuclear weapons you never intend to use in order to prevent a war between nuclear states has never been proven not to work.

/And Krauthammer is a dope.


It's 8am on a friday, cut me some slack. And show me examples where MAD as not worked.
 
2012-08-31 08:20:47 AM  

namatad: I agreed with his comparison in how Iran was different than USSR and that Iran would possibly actually use the bomb against tel aviv.


Really? You think Iran would sacrifice itself to bomb Israel? Because that's what it'd be doing. If Iran launches a nuke towards Israel, Iran will become extinct within a few moments. Iran knows this. They're leaders are crazy, but not brain dead. If they die, they no longer have any influence, power, or control in this world.
 
2012-08-31 08:21:16 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: Monkeyhouse Zendo: namatad: The article argued that it is rational for israel to bomb iran to stop iran from getting nukes. In general, I have no problem with that. I really dont think the world would be a better place if Iran had nukes. Iran does not play nice with others.

Wars since 1980
Iran: 1
US: 3

It gets uglier if you start counting undeclared military actions like Grenada and Libya. Iran likes to beat it's chest on the world stage but when it comes to not playing nice with others, Iran is far from the top of the list.

And Iran didnt even start theirs.


You have to feed them truth in small doses. They're so unused to it after years of propaganda and indoctrination that they can rapidly overdose.
 
2012-08-31 08:23:12 AM  

namatad: I really dont think the world would be a better place if Iran had nukes. Iran does not play nice with others.


Devil's advocate: other than Iraq, which nations has Iran openly warred against in recent decades?

Of course I despise the Iranian government. The people of Iran are good, however. Nevermind the nuclear option, almost everybody local to the site dies in that case. Who survives a bunker-buster in the heart of Tehran? A mother pushing a stroller with a bag of groceries perhaps?
 
2012-08-31 08:24:48 AM  

AirForceVet: I find the author lacks serious perspective.

The threat of Iran using nuclear weapons on Israel is one thing. The threat of the USA retaliating with nuclear strikes on Iran is another. We're really, really, really good at launching delivery systems like Minuteman and Trident missiles, plus using thermonuclear warheads on targets. WE have had lots of practice.


Exactly this. Iran isn't going to sacrifice Iran for Jerusalem.
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report