Alas Babylon - Iran and nukes

[Agent327]

I am right all the time =)

In your mind maybe...

 

[El_Machinae]

I am right all the time =)

In this case, if I am wrong, no one is harmed.
If I am correct, and YOU are wrong....thousands of innocents die.

I can live with that.

Yeah, it's a bit like Pascal's wager. Except, there's not an easy solution. IF we think that Iran is going for the bomb (and IF we think that means an eventual threat), there continues to be no moral way to interfere. IF we interfere, then it will result in an increase in evil in the world (which may, or may not, have actually been justified).

 

[red_elk]

The logic is that having nukes gives Iran a lot of power. The west doesn't want them to have more power. It isn't about good and evil, despite what some people might tell you.

This.
Non-proliferation treaty here is just a fig leaf, to cover geopolitical ambitions.
But it doesn't mean that Iran having nukes would be a good thing.

Can't invade N-Korea without massive S-Korean civilian casualties. And even then it would be tricky.

Despite they've already built nukes and openly declared that.
"Yes we have, go and take them if you can".

 

[WindFish]

I prefer being right =)

You do know that preference and being right are two different things right?

 

[Arwon]

Educate yourself then.



There is this slight problem called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran is a signatory party of, which specifically forbids it from developing and deploying nuclear weapons. Neither Israel nor Pakistan are bound by the NPT.

Also, this helps make the world a better place how? Pakistan is on a verge of collapse which could unleash nuclear hell over the Indian subcontinent, so I wouldn't exactly cite it as a proof nuclear proliferation is nothing to be worried about.

I don't recall claiming nuclear proliferation was desirable or made the world a better place. I just struggle to get outraged when a major power in a nuclear armed region which is the subject of strategic interests by several major nuclear powers, wants to get nuclear weapons itself.

Although I am willing to attempt the argument that MAD makes the world a better place, even if I'm not really convinced by it.

 

[JollyRoger]

Since the election, Iran is already more than a couple of weeks closer to having a nuke.

 

[Cutlass]

This all, of course, is assuming that Obama has done anything that makes it easier to get a nuke, or that there is anything short of war he could do to prevent them from getting a nuke. Since neither is true, what is the point of the thread other than to mindlessly hate on Obama?

 

[timtofly]

Could it be that they do not want to use the nukes, but use them as leverage to claim more territory, like in the whole area between them and the Med?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Maybe. Or maybe they use it as leverage to force the Miss Universal jury to accept women with burkas. Whatever it is I expect vileness.

 

[Thedrin]

red_elk:

Hehehe:

red_elk:
Shouldn't North Korea be the higher priority target? Given the nature of the regime.

Can't invade N-Korea without massive S-Korean civilian casualties. And even then it would be tricky.

Despite they've already built nukes and openly declared that.
"Yes we have, go and take them if you can".

Yes, despite this, there would still be massive South Korean casualties if there was an attempt to forcibly disarm North Korea.

timtofly:
Could it be that they do not want to use the nukes, but use them as leverage to claim more territory, like in the whole area between them and the Med?

I certainly believe that they could use them to gain significant influence over more territory. I have great difficulty believing that they would build them with the intent of starting a nuclear war with Israel.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Since the election, Iran is already more than a couple of weeks closer to having a nuke.

And if the other candidate who seems to almost completely agree with the current president regarding foreign policy was elected, just the opposite would have apparently occurred.

I certainly believe that they could use them to gain significant influence over more territory. I have great difficulty believing that they would build them with the intent of starting a nuclear war with Israel.

Who exactly do you think Iran is going to threaten with them "to gain significant influence over more territory"? Have India, Pakistan, or North Korea done so? Has Iran ever shown any interest in imperialism and hegemony?

 

[timtofly]

And if the other candidate who seems to almost completely agree with the current president regarding foreign policy was elected, just the opposite would have apparently occurred.

Time travel is not magic apparently.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm confused. Is time travel limited to absurd speculation regarding Democratic presidents, and not the other candidate who expressed essentially the same views?

 

[Thedrin]

Who exactly do you think Iran is going to threaten with them "to gain significant influence over more territory"? Have India, Pakistan, or North Korea done so? Has Iran ever shown any interest in imperialism and hegemony?

Threaten?

Edit: I do believe that Iran has ambitions that some would describe as imperialist. I do not believe that imperialism is necessarily a bad thing or that it is an unnatural desire for a regional power.

 

[Gatsby]

Well its 'game over'. The last chance to stop Iran from getting a nuke has failed.
THIS President will allow them to obtain not simply one, but an arsenal.

Iran, given the nature of the regime will eventually use one, either thru proxy or by
themselves.

The other states will want their own, justly doubting the USA being willing to protect them. In addition, Obama is delibretly hampering ballistic missile defense.

So, in my opinion: We can expect to see at least one US city nuked sometime in the next decade. Maybe more.

And I for one will hang that blame on Obama. He could have stopped it.

So unless Israel goes it alone, we are all in the hurt locker.
And why should Israel do that?

Stalin and Mao had nuclear weapons and never used them. What makes the Iranians any more inclined to use them?

If anything Iran having nukes is likely to bring greater stability to the mid-east. Once nations acquire nuclear weapons they tend to become noticeably more cautious in their behaviour and rhetoric. Having a nuclear arsenal involves a strategic trade-off: the key advantage of having nukes is that they basically guarantee your country won't be invaded by a foreign army, the key disadvantage is that you make yourself a much more likely target for a retaliatory nuclear strike from a nuclear armed rival. It is indeed true that nuclear weapons are actually used all the time, and very effectively, to prevent armed hostilities. The Iranians know this, and they also know that developing nuclear energy will better enable them to take advantage of high international oil prices. They also know that if they nuke the US or Israel, they are in turn guaranteeing that they themselves will be nuked into oblivion. Even if only one major Iranian city were hit in a nuclear retaliation the damage to their country would be devastating, especially in the face of the severe international sanctions that would certainly follow.

So far Israel has been the only nuclear-armed nation in the mid-east. If Arab countries really were so freaked out by a nuclear-armed Iran that they felt the need to have their own nukes, then surely the prospect of a nuclear-armed Israel would have scared several Arab countries into acquiring nukes by now.

What the Israelis and Americans truly fear from a nuclear armed Iran is not the prospect of an Iranian nuke going off over Tel Aviv or in New York, what they truly fear is a severe curtailing of their military and diplomatic options for dealing with a rival power and its allies in a strategically vital part of the world.

 

[Arwon]

Threaten?

Edit: I do believe that Iran has ambitions that some would describe as imperialist.

Why do you believe that? Any evidence or is this just from your feels?

 

[amadeus]

This all, of course, is assuming that Obama has done anything that makes it easier to get a nuke, or that there is anything short of war he could do to prevent them from getting a nuke. Since neither is true, what is the point of the thread other than to mindlessly hate on Obama?

Who said neither is true? By preserving our antique foreign policy on Iran Obama is doing nothing to stop them from building a bomb. If the American government is going to accuse Iran of developing nuclear weapons regardless of evidence and punish them for it, it makes sense for Iran to pursue a weapons program.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Threaten?

Well, yes. I would think that forcibly taking land from another sovereign country is a very threatening gesture. YMMV.

Edit: I do believe that Iran has ambitions that some would describe as imperialist. I do not believe that imperialism is necessarily a bad thing or that it is an unnatural desire for a regional power.

Ditto what Arwon stated.

And I think most people would disagree with you regarding imperialism, especially the victims.

 

[Phrossack]

Right.

Better yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo
(why don't these YouTube links work like they used to?)
Iran has no motivation to launch nuclear weapons at the US, nor the means to do so. It's just Chiteng being Chiteng.

 

[Thedrin]

Arwon:
Why do you believe that? Any evidence or is this just from your feels?

Please note the very broad phrasing "that some would describe as imperialist". But I do believe that Iran wishes to increase its political influence throughout the Middle East and to be seen as a regional leader. Naturally such a position would be used to influence trade and other international negotiations in its favour.

I also expect any state to try and increase its international influence and don't see anything particularly unusual in what Iran is doing. It could be argued that it is being more antagonistic, but I suspect that the existence of Iran under its current government is sufficiently antagonistic to many people.

This would be something similar to "one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter". If 2 states take the same action to increase their regional influence and one is viewed positively and the other is viewed negatively, then the latter state is denounced as imperialist whilst the former is praised for [reasons].

Well, yes. I would think that forcibly taking land from another sovereign country is a very threatening gesture. YMMV.

Ditto what Arwon stated.

And I think most people would disagree with you regarding imperialism, especially the victims.

I had to go back and check that I didn't say that Iran would use nuclear weapons to get more territory. Which I didn't. It's true that I was responding to someone who raised the possibility that they might, but my response was an attempt to suggest that the specific scenario that he (timtofly) outlined did not seem realistic to me.

I did say that Iran could use nuclear weapons to gain influence over territory, e.g. expanding their influence in Iraq as a protective big brother, but I was quite careful not to discuss annexation of any kind since I don't view it as being particularly likely.

Based on some of the responses to my posts here I should clarify a few things about my opinion on Iran. I suspect that relative to most people in the west I have a positive view of Iran. I believe that there are rational reasons for Iran to want to pursue nuclear technology for non military means. I'm content to accept the view of the intelligence community that Iran abandoned its pursuit of nuclear weapons (if, indeed, it ever seriously pursued them). I do not find the notion of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons particularly frightening. If they did obtain nuclear weapons I would be glad if they decommissioned them, but no more so than if any other country decommissioned them. I do not consider Iran to be a particularly nasty Middle Eastern state. I think that it would be advantageous for both Iran - under it current system of government - and the western states to work together as equals, and the fault for this not happening lies, in my view, more with the western states than with Iran.

I had been very cautious about what I typed in my previous posts because I did not wish to get the typical responses that I associate with the side that views Iran very negatively.

But I guess you're either with us or you're against us.