We think you miss the boat on this one. Mutually Assured Destruction was/is/has been an effective way of dealing with other nuclear states. If there is a problem with Atrios' reasoning, it isn't because of some sort of leftist overcompensation (whatever the hell that is), but because MAD may not work in a situation where the nuclear state sort of sponsors terrorism. While we appreciate your ability to extrapolate broad generalities about the left from nearly any situation, Atrios was quite clearly talking about MAD in his original post and this was a central part of American foreign policy for the last half of the 20th Century; hardly the stuff of your moonbats.

cp

Remember when the left was yipping about Bush or (before him) Reagan's evangelical Christianity making them likely to trip off Armageddon? Ahmadi-nejad may well be the real thing. How many mullahs have said they'd trade Iran for Israel?

MAD only works when both sides genuinely want to survive. The Soviets did; the mullahs (as opposed to the Iranians) may not.

Oh, yeah - and while MAD may not be the stuff of moonbats, it's definitely the kind of "strategy" a lefty would dream up (as, indeed, a bunch of lefties did); society as a whole gets a thumbs up or thumbs down.

Atrios misses the point. Iran wants to have nukes, not neccessarily use them. A nuclear armed Iranian state will be free to export conventional terrorism, intimidate its neighbors, and repress its populace with no fear of invasion.

While we're pretty sure that Ahmadinejad is one crazy fellow when it comes to his thinking about things like Israel and the holocaust, we're still willing to believe that he, and the Iranian government, have to be considered rational actors when it comes to the use of nuclear arms. Of course the big caveat here comes in this form: We don't think they would use them, but we're not too sure they would be too unwilling to let some nuclear material pass along to some less than savory characters. Although, even this isn't that simple, as rudimentary nuclear weapons delivery is still something that is beyond the reach of most nation states on the globe. That being said, it is still pretty hard to argue that a non-nuclear Iran is still much more preferable than a nuclear one. However, as with Pakistan and India, there is precedent for the effective use of MAD in the region.

Also, if you want another good argument against Atrios' position...damn, Terry hit on it already (The counter argument to that would be that we would quickly need to offer umbrella agreements, trip-wire garrisons, etc to nation states threatened by a nuclear Iran.) Hat's off to Terry.

As for the whole thing about MAD being a leftist idea, that is nonsense and it really shows that you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject. The whole idea of MAD results from the destructive nature of the weapon itself, not from any outlying ideological theory. In order to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons on single cities and targets, the cost of doing so has to be ratcheted up to such a level to make the initial deployment upon such a target exist in an area well beyond the realm of a rational cost/benefit decision. Since you're celebrating the 95th birthday of President Reagan, we're sure you can appreciate the finer points of brinkmanship and escalating cost.

MAD really took hold in foreign policy circles in the traditionally conservative realist camp. Kenneth Waltz even floated the idea of the more the merrier when it comes to nuclear weapons (of course, we are simplifying the argument a bit), as then all nuclear nations would share in the heightened cost of nuclear deployment. Once again, the conservative nature/ideology of the realist camp didn't invent MAD, but hey, only a leftist could agree with such an argument, right?

The point here is that MAD is the pragmatic extension of a violent cat that has been let out of the bag. How do nation states deal with the cost of nuclear weapons? Where does their true value lay? MAD is a forward-looking theory that is based on the functionality of the weapon itself, not a broad ideological view of the world.

Finally, do you have any examples of "the left" yelping about Bush's evangelical Christianity making him likely to trip off Armageddon? Are these examples peer-reviewed or are they just on-air snippets from Jeneane Garaffaluffogus or Michael Moore? If you find them, how are these examples any better of an explanation for the existence of possible irrational action than, say, someone who writes a bunch of gibberish about how Ahmadinejad's Islamo-fascism will trigger the nuclear go-ahead? This isn't to equate the two in terms of substance (we obviously think that Ahmadinejad's worldview is a wacko compared to Bush's mainstream version of Christianity), but in terms of process; the deployment of nuclear weapons has never been an ideological proposition. If one is to make that point, one has to answer how nation state a's purported irrationality is tangibly different than nation b's (and to such an effect as to ignore the high pragmatic costs of nuclear annihilation; in Iran's case, the deck is decidely stacked against them as we have a rather massive stockpile of a- nuclear warheads and b- viable delivery systems). As far as this case goes, we imagine this line of reasoning would begin with an attempt to extrapolate the mindset of a terrorist suicide bomber to the military actions of an entire nation. Could it happen? Sure, but it's a tough position to back up.

One more thing, do you think MAD (supposedly being the "lefty" strategy it is) worked out well for the US during the Cold War?

cp

once again...stupid small window...this:

"That being said, it is still pretty hard to argue that a non-nuclear Iran is still much more preferable than a nuclear one."

makes no sense at all. we can't remember what we had before the edit, but the basic point is that a non-nuclear Iran is the preferable choice to a nuclear one (if we could pick).

CS-
I agree that MAD is a foreign policy "realist" position rather than a right/left position. I don't think that the current problem with Iran is really a MAD situation, though. They have no way to deliver the bombs to US soil. It's my opinion that the threat from "suitcase" nukes is greatly exagerated -- the great thing (from a statesman's POV) about icbm's and airplanes is that they go where you tell them to go & deliver their payload under tight political and military control. You can't say that about a suitcase nuke.
My concern about Iran as a nuclear power is that if the mullah's get these things and put them on rockets that can reach Israel, they may then feel free to act increasingly provocative, trusting in the missile's deterent power, until the Israeli's make a preemptive move to eliminate the threat. God only knows exactly what would happen then but I'm certain it wouldn't be good for children and other living things.

Sponge,

I spoke a tad too broadly; MAD is a *Statist*, not a *liberal*, position. There are right-wing statists and left-wing individualists.

I grew up among the missile silos. From early on, I hated - that is the right word - the people who believed in bargaining all of society against the stability of the *least* stable, sane or moral of our enemies (or leaders). The theory was crushingly morally vacant. Did it make sense in context? Perhaps. So did a lot of things, historically, that we now regard as odious.

Returning to it is unacceptable. I do not want my children to grow up with that sprectre hanging over their heads. I will do all I can to destroy, politically or otherwise, those who would.

Fuck them all with sticks. For me there is no compromise on this.

Mitch:

That is a fair position. While we definitely respect you and your site, we think your one super major flaw is to jump on anything and everything you disagree with as being liberal, leftist, moonbatish, or whatever. Sometimes, this happens in an area that is so political that it doesn't matter when you take such a position; everbody does. Other times (not as often as the first example) it happens in situations where you are so clearly and obviously wrong that...well, it really hurts your credibility. Since you have a lot of people who read and like your site, we'd honestly hate to see that happen. Really, we're not trying to be snarky or condescending here. You pointed us in the right direction on a 2nd Amendment issue a while back (where we were wrong) and we're trying to return the favor.

Anyway, we appreciate your distaste for nuclear weapons. Having made the trip to Minot a couple of times, having worked for USSTRATCOM (formerly SAC), and having some experience as a foreign policy analyst, we understand that the issue is a bit more immediate for you than most. After all, let's be serious; if things ever went down with Russia during the Cold War...well, I'm sure you know what would have happened to all of those silos. Also, I guess it says a lot about the government's calculation of North Dakota's worth for them to place so many targets in such a sparsely populated area. That's gotta be pissed off worthy material.

Terry, we think you have a VERY valid point about a preemptive attack on Israel. While Israel's attack on Osirak may have saved tens of thousands (millions?) of Iranian lives, this event is probably viewed by the Iranian government as what is in store for their nuclear program if the rest of the world does nothing. One of the things we didn't get around to with the whole MAD discussion is the matter of poor intel. What is the one thing that trumps irrational action? Shitty intel. Only bad things can happen with bad intel. This, coincidentally, is why we opposed the War in Iraq and did not reenlist following our work with OEF, but that's another story alltogether.

If Israel attacks because they think that Iran doesn't have a proper delivery system ready for deployment, and it turns out that they do...or if Iran attacks because they see Israeli planes deploy in such a manner as to provoke a quick launch of a nuclear device...Anyway, we'd hope that these two countries have worked out some sort of military back channel where they could make sure that these things don't happen.

cp