On June 13 2010 14:14 Blanke wrote: I know that North Korea loves to talk shit and never take action versus South Korea, but if Israel were to nuke Iran, do you think such a shocking event might motivate them to make their move? I'm just saying that a nuke being dropped on anybodies' soil has global repercussions and unforseeable outcomes.
We should scan the internet over the next few days for possible updates. This is definately a topic worth following!
Despite the friction in the region, I highly doubt that Israel would use a nuclear weapon against Iran out of the blue. It's overkill for what they want to achieve, which is the destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities. If Israel does launch attacks on Iran, it will most likely be some sort of precision bombing against specific strategic targets with conventional weaponry. As for whether or not that might provoke Iran to retaliate, I'm certain it probably would...
Why shouldn't every country in the middle east have nukes?
The way Iran is typically characterized in discussions of nuclear proliferation relies on a binary where we are rational and disciplined and they are impulsive and crazy. Lets look at some of the responses to the person I quoted on the 1st page:
Nigeria-"Hm, those neighbors we have, the Nigers, are stealing water from our well. NUKE THE FUCKERS!" Niger- "Oh SHIT! RETALIATE!" the REST OF AFRICA-"NUKES ARE FLYING! SHIT! EVERYONE RETALIATE!"
Thats just a TASTE of something that could happen.
How can you read this and not see the thinly veiled racist assumptions about Africa and 3rd world countries in general? How did this poster come to know that African countries are crazy and would nuke each other for "stealing water from our well"?
This is basically a caricature of all discussions of nuclear proliferation in the 3rd world. It's based on an assumed otherness between the 3rd world and the west where we are rational and they are not. This discourse is then used to advance and universalize the interests of the west.
let's go back to my example of labeling Iran as a "rouge state". What are we really saying when we call them this? All it means is that we view them as a threat to our security interests and that they don't do what we tell them to do, but framing them as an outlaw state pretends like this view is objective when it's actually subjective based on our own security interests. Once the assumption of Iran's irrationality is cemented we can use it to advance our own security interests by making it appear like they were objectively everyone's interests.
The U.S.'s discourse on nuclear proliferation makes it seem like the current order, where a few elite powers and their allies have nuclear weapons and no one else does, is natural and objectively desirable when it's actually something that we have shaped and have a vested interest in maintaining so we can stay on top.
There's a large body of academic literature about why nuclear proliferation is actually a stabilizing factor -- it makes conventional war less likely because the involved countries know any war could potentially go nuclear. If every country in the middle east had nukes then no one would want to go to war because they might get blown up.
Presenting proliferation as a threat rests on the racist assumption that third world countries are backwards and irrational, and only serves as an attempt to legitimate our nuclear monopoly.
Edit: If your response to nukes stabilizing the middle east is "but those countries are crazy and would just nuke each other!", then thanks for proving my point.
The characterization is not that the entire populace of the middle east and third world are insane; it's that the leadership of certain nations is. Is that characterization biased based on our religious and political interests? Of course. Should it be? Of course not.
You have to admit that the rhetoric coming from the likes of Ahmedinejad, Kim Jong Il, et al is pretty anti-Western, and anti-America. Do they have a right to be? Probably. We've meddled in shit that wasn't ours to meddle in for the past 50 years, from the end of WWII on.
But what are we to do? When a country routinely issues threats against us, are we to stand there and let them act, just shaking our hand and assuming they won't follow through? Or even better-- hand them the schematics, materials, and experts that will let them arm themselves on the (ridiculous) level we are, and then wave them off with the same lightness?
In the interest of full disclosure: I'm not for the state of Israel, or for its destruction. I think religious states, and religions, are inherently stupid-- they breed the animosity we see in the Middle East today, just as racial boundaries bred the animosity we see in Kyrgyzstan right now, and tribal distinctions create situations like in Darfur and Rwanda. I don't think anyone should have nukes, especially in very heated political climates-- were it up to me, I'd snatch the nukes from Israel, Pakistan, and India first, and then work my way down the list from there.
I see your point about an assumption of irrationality about Africa and the Middle East. It must have come from somewhere, so where? We certainly don't have the same thoughts about South Korea, Japan, Russia (anymore), Turkey, and many other nations. The existing hostility between our nations is a factor, certainly.
But what of the religiously-fueled hatred for the West that Ahmedinejad has? (Please notice that I'm using the leader's name, not the name of the nation-- no common people want war, and I don't think the Iranians are different in this respect). Religion is a tool used to create passions in the populace and justify horrible things. It goes all the way back to AT LEAST the book of Numbers in the Old Testament. In the face of absolute control of one's populace, and the morale in one's army on the level of fanaticism, a leader can unleash terrible forces if he is able.
Case: Adolf Hitler in post-WWI and WWII Germany. He had charisma, propaganda, and united Germany on two fronts: common hatred of the Jewish people, and common love of the Aryans. He turned Germany into a fanatical war-machine, and murdered some 20 million civilians, and cost many nations, many FAMILIES, their soldiers.
Am I saying Ahmedinejad or Kim are the next Hitlers? No. I'm saying it's possible, and that we are better served by being safe than sorry. I'm saying that Iran ought to have nuclear power, and deserve nuclear POWER, but that their leadership does not.
You have a choice here: you can stick your fingers in your ears and leap from the fact that I disagree with you into your "racist" spiel, or you can seriously consider what I've said and develop counterarguments, and foster a mutually fruitful discussion. I'm not a bigot, and as arrogant as I am, I would rather be shown that I'm wrong than be wrong without knowing.
On June 13 2010 14:11 eMbrace wrote: Lysdexia, you've written a lot of stuff I don't feel like reading anymore so I'm just going to ask you a yes or no question.
Lean back in your chair, take a deep breath, and reassess this argument. We all think nukes are terrible. We all want them to go away. That being said:
Are you just as comfortable with North Korea and Iran having nukes as you are with the United States having nukes?
Yes to Iran. I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the situation in North Korea to answer about them but I thought they already had nukes?
Ok I'll just ignore North Korea bit for a second to advance this discussion to the next step.
Yes or no once again:
Are you aware of the recent history of Iran, the state of their government, who their leader is, and what he has said and done?
On June 13 2010 14:00 On_Slaught wrote: Here's a simple argument.
The more nukes there are in the world the higher the chance that some truely bad people get them and use them or that a mistake happens or that they become a solution to non-worthy troubles if everyone becomes comfortable with the idea of having nukes.
Having more nukes than there already is doesn't make the world safer. It just increases the chance of the terrible happening.
Exactly! This is why the US should dismantle 99% of its N.Weapon storage. We have the power to reduce the numbers more than anyone... but we just haven't yet. It would be an unprecedented gesture. AND show that we are truly concerned about the problem of weapons... we would destroy them. Trying to prevent a country from developing them, when we have the power to dismantle hundreds seems- petty.
On June 13 2010 14:11 eMbrace wrote: Lysdexia, you've written a lot of stuff I don't feel like reading anymore so I'm just going to ask you a yes or no question.
Lean back in your chair, take a deep breath, and reassess this argument. We all think nukes are terrible. We all want them to go away. That being said:
Are you just as comfortable with North Korea and Iran having nukes as you are with the United States having nukes?
Yes to Iran. I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the situation in North Korea to answer about them but I thought they already had nukes?
Ok I'll just ignore North Korea bit for a second to advance this discussion to the next step.
Yes or no once again:
Are you aware of the recent history of Iran, the state of their government, who their leader is, and what he has said and done?
Yes. Iran's population is largely anti-Israel and given the state of their government it makes sense that Ahmadinejad would try to drum up nationalist/ethic support by making anti-Israeli statements. I don't think that they would actually nuke Israel because they know that they would face retaliation from both Israel and the U.S.
Are you aware of the recent history of the U.S. who are former leader was, and what he said and did? A lot of the instability in Iran is because of U.S. sanctions.
On June 13 2010 13:37 Romantic wrote: Leave it to Saudi Arabia to support terrorism against Iran. Nothing new. Just another thing to dislike about Saudi Arabia. It is almost as if they want the peace movements in Iran to fail.
The peace movements had their chance to change the regime, and they failed. I'm sure that the Saudi's would love it if the peace movements were successful in overthrowing the current regime, assuming they would be replaced by a better regime, but it's clearly been proven that that's not going to happen. At this point, Saudi Arabia, which is as much an enemy of Iran as is Israel, is forced to start taking a stronger stance now that regime change has been taken off the chance. While I doubt that Israel would be stupid enough to go through the Saudi strip of land, as it would probably destroy any real sense of surprise, it's important because it's showing Iran that the region's main actors are really starting to harden in their opposition, especially as Iran gets closer to developing a nuclear weapon. This announcement will probably have the opposite effect of that which was intended (To force Iran to stop the development of nuclear arms), as the Iranian leadership will feel that they have to rush forward in their development before they are attacked.
What I find personally to be most interesting about this, is the timing. This kind of aggressive posturing realistically only starts when all other venues of approach have failed. Thus, it would seem that the Saudi's believe that the UN efforts to curtail Iran have failed, and in all likelihood, the intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia are probably warning the monarchy that time is quickly running out. Otherwise, such aggressive posturing probably would not be necessary.
Just my 2 cents on it though.
Really, the UN is about as useful as a wet paper towel. Peace movements may have "failed" in that they did not change the regime, but they will continue. You can't really expect a country to become peaceful and modernize ON YOUR TERMS, when you have no diplomatic ties, threaten it with terrorism with a history of abusing the oil resources and sponsoring dictators, invade its neighbors, shoot down some of their passenger planes, infiltrate their country with the CIA to conduct resistance, organize protests, and kidnap people, and keep an economic blockade.
I guess the US policy of placing anti-communist dictators who will support US business is going to be replaced by anti-terrorist dictators. Luckily terrorism doesn't have a definition. Easier to label someone a terrorist than a communist, for sure.
tl;dr aggressive posturing isnt necessary unless you have a policy of being aggressive.
Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
On June 13 2010 14:34 D10 wrote: Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
obama lost all my respect
I don't think there's a country in this world that seriously believes that Iran is only looking for energy just like there's not a country in this world that believes that North Korea is only looking for energy. It's not just the USA that's against this either so please stop making it seem like it's some "US bullshit". There's a good reason why nobody believes that either of these nations have benign intentions with their pursuit of nuclear power. Perhaps you should consider why all these nations around the world might feel this way and have these suspicions rather than believe what the guy under suspicion says... It's not like the country that wants to develop nuclear weapons is going to come right out and say, "Hey, we're going to build nuclear weapons so we can stand up to you."
On June 13 2010 14:00 On_Slaught wrote: Here's a simple argument.
The more nukes there are in the world the higher the chance that some truely bad people get them and use them or that a mistake happens or that they become a solution to non-worthy troubles if everyone becomes comfortable with the idea of having nukes.
Having more nukes than there already is doesn't make the world safer. It just increases the chance of the terrible happening.
Exactly! This is why the US should dismantle 99% of its N.Weapon storage. We have the power to reduce the numbers more than anyone... but we just haven't yet. It would be an unprecedented gesture. AND show that we are truly concerned about the problem of weapons... we would destroy them. Trying to prevent a country from developing them, when we have the power to dismantle hundreds seems- petty.
I heard some general did a report that found that we could get rid of thousands of nukes and only keep a few hundred (there was a specific number but I dont remember) and it would keep us with enough to still do everything we would want to in the event of a nuclear war.
On June 13 2010 14:34 D10 wrote: Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
obama lost all my respect
I assume this anger is comming from the fact that the international community turned down the waste-of-time deal that Brazil and Turkey tried to set up with Iran. You offered to take some of their materials and give them energy resources without doing a SINGLE THING to stop their personal production of nuclear material (for weapons or energy) which makes it pointless.
We have already asked Iran to give up all of their material and we will give them the energy-specific results they claim they are after but they have turned it down.
If you listen to the crazy rhetoric comming from Ahmadinijad (sp) plus what his government has done then you have no basis for thinking that this is only for peaceful means.
Also... where is it comming from that this is US only? Pretty much every international atomic orginization as well as the vast majority of security council countries agrees with these actions otherwise a 4th set of sanctions wouldn't of been passed today.
On June 13 2010 14:24 cursor wrote: Exactly! This is why the US should dismantle 99% of its N.Weapon storage. We have the power to reduce the numbers more than anyone... but we just haven't yet. It would be an unprecedented gesture. AND show that we are truly concerned about the problem of weapons... we would destroy them. Trying to prevent a country from developing them, when we have the power to dismantle hundreds seems- petty.
Yeah.. this isn't going to happen... ever. If you stopped for 5 seconds and actually thought about it, you'd understand why.
Besides, the concern isn't the sheer number of nuclear weapons, but rather the number of different factions and interests that have access to them. It's the latter that contributes to greater instability and unpredictability.
On June 13 2010 13:37 Romantic wrote: Leave it to Saudi Arabia to support terrorism against Iran. Nothing new. Just another thing to dislike about Saudi Arabia. It is almost as if they want the peace movements in Iran to fail.
The peace movements had their chance to change the regime, and they failed. I'm sure that the Saudi's would love it if the peace movements were successful in overthrowing the current regime, assuming they would be replaced by a better regime, but it's clearly been proven that that's not going to happen. At this point, Saudi Arabia, which is as much an enemy of Iran as is Israel, is forced to start taking a stronger stance now that regime change has been taken off the chance. While I doubt that Israel would be stupid enough to go through the Saudi strip of land, as it would probably destroy any real sense of surprise, it's important because it's showing Iran that the region's main actors are really starting to harden in their opposition, especially as Iran gets closer to developing a nuclear weapon. This announcement will probably have the opposite effect of that which was intended (To force Iran to stop the development of nuclear arms), as the Iranian leadership will feel that they have to rush forward in their development before they are attacked.
What I find personally to be most interesting about this, is the timing. This kind of aggressive posturing realistically only starts when all other venues of approach have failed. Thus, it would seem that the Saudi's believe that the UN efforts to curtail Iran have failed, and in all likelihood, the intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia are probably warning the monarchy that time is quickly running out. Otherwise, such aggressive posturing probably would not be necessary.
Just my 2 cents on it though.
Really, the UN is about as useful as a wet paper towel. Peace movements may have "failed" in that they did not change the regime, but they will continue. You can't really expect a country to become peaceful and modernize ON YOUR TERMS, when you have no diplomatic ties, threaten it with terrorism with a history of abusing the oil resources and sponsoring dictators, invade its neighbors, shoot down some of their passenger planes, infiltrate their country with the CIA to conduct resistance, organize protests, and kidnap people, and keep an economic blockade.
I guess the US policy of placing anti-communist dictators who will support US business is going to be replaced by anti-terrorist dictators. Luckily terrorism doesn't have a definition. Easier to label someone a terrorist than a communist, for sure.
tl;dr aggressive posturing isnt necessary unless you have a policy of being aggressive.
I said nothing about the US, and instead related it to Saudi Arabia's policies. Don't try to make a straw-man of my argument.
Aggressive posturing is very necessary, when other, more peaceful means of policy have failed.
As a final point, your use of the word terrorism is hilarious. Iran's sponsorship of terrorism makes your rhetoric hypocritical, at best.
Saudi Arabia can't be seen to be publicly helping Israel, so naturally they would deny it. Practically speaking though, I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudi's purposely leaked the info knowing full well that domestically they can just say the London paper is full of shit, while still sending a very clear message to Iran.
Yeah it was a reported in a jpost link a couple of pages back. It's most likely an off the record comment by some general or defense minister that has been taken as massive news.
On June 13 2010 14:24 Blanke wrote: @Jinmakieul And when Iran does indeed choose to retaliate, how will they go about doing so?
It's hard to predict exactly how serious any retaliation would be. I'm pretty certain it will remain within the realms of conventional warfare in any case. I'm sure Iran does have some sort of weaponry to counterbalance Israel's nuclear capabilities (be they chemical or biological), but I really think any retaliation will be in the form or minor skirmishes rather than full-fledged war. I just can't see the world tolerating another serious war in that region of the world.
On June 13 2010 14:34 D10 wrote: Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
obama lost all my respect
The exact same argument was made for Pakistan in the 80's, with the Pakistani's claiming that they only wanted nuclear power. This proved to be totally fallacious however, and given the current Iranian regime's record of reverting to military power, to say nothing of the tensions in the region, they will be working to develop nuclear arms. Brazil, Argentina and many other countries are very different from Iran because the motivations they have for developing nuclear technology are by and large mostly peaceful: the same is unfortunately not true of Iran.
EPT
