I doubt that's what analysts said. Maybe they say that it'll be harder and harder to find the facilities and possibly built within the confines of cities to prevent any special forces type surgical strike, but bomb-proof?
First of all, to go further underground you have to build that. It's not instant. And building projects are very bombable.
And if they do go underground it's still not completely immune to a strike.
A single strike isn't going to eliminate it. Are you really thinking that U.S. and Israel can just sustain constant bombing operations against Iran and not recieve any sort of backlash from them? Remember, this wouldn't be destroying a single half-ready reactor like in Iraq or Syria. The distances would be larger, the Straits of Hormuz could be closed, Syria and Hezbollah might act on Israel's border and Iran on Iraq/Afghanistan border. Russia and China would be quite pissed too. Nothing eliminates the chance of an Iranian response, which honestly pretty much every set law of international belligerence gives them the right to, including the ones U.S. and Israel usually operates on.
I really don't see it being worth the cost, especially when again, most analysts agree that you could only postpone it by a short time. Meanwhile, what does Iran lose? Some technology, some people. It gains more support from the population and the world at large and clear, undeniable justification against hostile acts towards both U.S. and Israel. It really has no risks in this game.
If you the US neocon critics of Obama and the actively sabotaging and fear-mongering right-wingers in Israel and the West were annoying and psychotic before, just you wait until Ahmadinejad has an actual nuclear weapon to wave around.
For the sake of a decent Israel-Palestine solution, and to annihilate all traces of the political movement that gave us the Iraq debacle, Abu Ghraib and the Afghanistan foibles, Iran must be kept from nuclear weapon capacity.
But aren't those two movements the very reason why Iran is (maybe) trying to get the bomb? I mean it seems like that would just be going in circles. You would be giving up to those movements, eg. just strenghtening in Iran's mind that it really DOES need nuclear weapons.
Honestly, do you think a combined U.S./Israel military strike killing dozens of Iranians would make Iran more or less radical, more or less anti-western, more or less to actually do something on weapons terms?
And would those two groups really change their fucked-up ways? Did they when U.S. invaded Iraq, or when Israel keeps killing Palestinians? Or did they just get more radical and uncooperative?
I doubt that's what analysts said. Maybe they say that it'll be harder and harder to find the facilities and possibly built within the confines of cities to prevent any special forces type surgical strike, but bomb-proof?
First of all, to go further underground you have to build that. It's not instant. And building projects are very bombable.
And if they do go underground it's still not completely immune to a strike.
A single strike isn't going to eliminate it. Are you really thinking that U.S. and Israel can just sustain constant bombing operations against Iran and not recieve any sort of backlash from them? Remember, this wouldn't be destroying a single half-ready reactor like in Iraq or Syria. The distances would be larger, the Straits of Hormuz could be closed, Syria and Hezbollah might act on Israel's border and Iran on Iraq/Afghanistan border. Russia and China would be quite pissed too. Nothing eliminates the chance of an Iranian response, which honestly pretty much every set law of international belligerence gives them the right to, including the ones U.S. and Israel usually operates on.
I really don't see it being worth the cost, especially when again, most analysts agree that you could only postpone it by a short time. Meanwhile, what does Iran lose? Some technology, some people. It gains more support from the population and the world at large and clear, undeniable justification against hostile acts towards both U.S. and Israel. It really has no risks in this game.
- The Iranians would attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. Would they succeed in doing so with the biggest navy in the world standing in their way? I'd wager against it. This is one of those things that is listed as a result of Israel doing it alone. And, this would also screw Iran over most of all.
- And everyone keeps pointing to this mysterious military response from Iran against America. What would they actually do? Yeah, they'd want to kill American soldiers. But how would they do this without a deeper escalation by the US military against Iranian military installations? Good chance they would do something. Great chance they would get fucked over.
- You really think the US military wouldn't be able to completely take control of the Iranian air space and commit to a sustained bombing campaign? The US obliterated an entire military in 1990 with an air campaign, so why wouldn't they be able to act against a few installations in 2010+? That Iran could somehow outpace a bombing campaign seems ridiculous to me. Do they have mutant ants working their construction?
- So, uh, Syria would respond in collusion with Iran in response to Iran getting bombed even though Syria didn't do shit when their own reactor got bombed by Israel? Ok.
- It really has no risks in this game? What? Being bombed is kind of a risk and isn't much of a game. Their economy would get fucked, and all that results from that would follow. I'm sorry, I don't know how you can maintain that "oh being on the sharp end of US military action wouldn't be so bad for them". Seriously? What the fuck? The US might not succeed, but Iran would be royally fucked.
- So a naval blockade would now be included as well? You don't think that wouldn't lead into any sort of escalation of the conflict?
- Nothing mysterious about it. Provide U.S's enemies with money and materiel and volunteer forces against them. It wouldn't really be the end of the United States but it would mean that more Americans would be killed.
- Bosnia is a lot lot lot lot smaller then Iran. And Iran's military is a lot lot lot lot bigger too. You realize that you can't oblitrate the military forming with 545,000 active personnel and millions of it's reserves through bombing campaigns? Ground forces are needed as well - and were involved in Bosnia too, in the aftermath - and that would require a full scale invasion.
- Maybe it wouldn't, maybe it would. Orchard was much more vague then this operation, a sustained bombing campaign against several different targets, would be. Hezbollah certainly would act and that would open an actual front in the war.
- It's not really a risk. It's nothing that Iran can't rebuild or replace now that they have the knowhow and support of Russia and China, and it would gain it huge PR advantages. "Royally fucked" would indicate that Iran would lose something permanently, or something decisive would happen.
Either way, the hypothetical campaign would either end in Iran not really losing anything, or it escalating into an actual war. Neither outcome would be worth the costs, and the risks aren't worth the operation either.
And again, Iran hasn't done anything to warrant any bombing either.
1990, not 1992. I have a retarded brain about remembering dates. I meant the first gulf war. And we didn't do anything special in Bosnia that reflects favorably to the current situation.
If it is our only option left, it is worth trying. Nuclear weapons are bad things. Theocratic regimes with fascist tendencies are bad also. Combining these things would be an exponentially worse thing.
And why do you think they would have the support of Russia or China? Russia and China don't give a shit about them. China cares about their oil. They would be displeased with trade being interrupted but they can just as easily blame Iran for being stubborn as they can the US. And Iran attempting to lock down the Strait of Hormuz wouldn't put them on China's bff list.
Hoz on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited August 2010
Once this reactor is in full swing, what are the odds that it will start to shape Iranian peoples' views and lives? That is, can access to a new power source change political landscape.
Also can we trust the Russians to keep this mo'fucker secure? For the moment I say yes.
Also nuclear reactor fuel is refined differently than fuel for a nuclear weapon would have to be. So it's not like they're going to remove stuff from the reactor to make a bomb. Doesn't quite work that way. But I bet we'll be hearing this kind of talk anyway from people who don't know any better or just like to make people in the country feel scared.
It's a terrible idea to let anyone have nuclear weapons. If we have the power to prevent this, we should. And we should also work on getting those who already have nuclear weapons to slim down. But the hypocrisy people think they perceive doesn't mean letting a theocracy have a nuclear arsenal is a good idea.
But do we have the right to prevent anyone from having nuclear power, despite ourselves having it?
I mean, to my full knowledge Iran hasn't killed anyone or stolen technology to gain nuclear power, and at least two other nuclear powers (China, Russia) are co-operating with them.
Russia's been coming around to our way of thinking on this recently. It's one of the quiet diplomatic coups of the current administration.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
Hoz, whatever stability the region has now would be absolutely obliterated. And most people there would be on Iran's side, what with them being provoked and all.
Sure they're a theocratic fascist regime, but they seem to enjoy being in power which means they aren't going to do something stupid with their weapons. First striking Israel leads to pretty much only one outcome for Iran and I think it would be naive to think they don't know this.
1990, not 1992. I have a retarded brain about remembering dates. I meant the first gulf war. And we didn't do anything special in Bosnia that reflects favorably to the current situation.
If it is our only option left, it is worth trying. Nuclear weapons are bad things. Theocratic regimes with fascist tendencies are bad also. Combining these things would be an exponentially worse thing.
And why do you think they would have the support of Russia or China? Russia and China don't give a shit about them. China cares about their oil. They would be displeased with trade being interrupted but they can just as easily blame Iran for being stubborn as they can the US. And Iran attempting to lock down the Strait of Hormuz wouldn't put them on China's bff list.
The Gulf War also included eight aircraft carriers, 959,600 ground forces and 3,318 tanks...and the support of Saudi-Arabia and other Arab States which wouldn't happen if Israel was involved. U.S. still had losses. I'm pretty sure U.S. won't be able to carry out a sustained bombing campaign without a ground base. I don't think any of Iran's border countries would agree on co-operating in war against Iran either over a nuclear reactor. Saddam did invade Kuwait.
They would have the support of Russia and China because those two states are atagonistic towards U.S. seem to relish in some sort of diplomatic victories around this issue, and have military and energy co-operation? I don't mean military support, but Russia and China would condemn an unilateral attack without provocation in the news against someone with whom they have close relations because that's the sort of thing they do.
Iran is also the second largest oil exporter of OPEC. It wouldn't need the Straits of Hormuz to make a dent on oil around the world.
And again, plenty of regimes as bad as Iran have nuclear weapons and the world doesn't seem to be hanging on the edge of destruction. I still haven't heard an actual concrete threat on this thread that an Iranian nuke would pose, at least not one that would warrant an military response just because of a chance of it happening.
Well yeah, and it could do the same with oil. Those benefits I was referring to meant against global warming, progression of technology, etc.
Not really with oil, using fuel oil for power is inefficient and bad for the environment, NG by contrast is clean and cheap (as long as you have it locally, which they do).
If I'm understanding this correctly, they have a thousand trillion cubic feet of natural gas - my point is that they want nuclear reactors to piss off the West and/or to give themselves a sense of modernity, it has nothing to do with a need to produce electricity. As to whether anybody should stop them, I don't see any way that would be better than not stopping them.
override367 on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited August 2010
So basically people are already jumping to the conclusion that nuclear reactor equals nuclear weapons and we need to act ZOMG NOW NOW NOW.
That'd be a pretty big mistake, as has been illustrated above.
If I'm understanding this correctly, they have a thousand trillion cubic feet of natural gas - my point is that they want nuclear reactors to piss off the West and/or to give themselves a sense of modernity, it has nothing to do with a need to produce electricity. As to whether anybody should stop them, I don't see any way that would be better than not stopping them.
One solution will kill anywhere from dozens to hundreds of people...and another solution won't?
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Yea it isn't that, but Iran knows full well that's the reaction it'll get and I think they're trying to provoke that reaction.
I'm not an expert on the Persian mindset, but nobody likes to be told they can't do something
As long as the United States position on the issue is, "Good for you you have a reactor now" then things should be gravy. Thankfully we have a Democrat in office who will likely have that reaction, along with "If they're peacefully seeking energy," yadda yadda.
Meanwhile our political right is going to be screaming bloody-fuckin'-murder.
Yeah, I wouldn't argue a military operation to prevent them getting nuclear weapons on the idea that they'll end up using them the first chance they get on Israel.
But I don't think they're all that rational either. If they were rational they wouldn't be the type of regime they are. One could make the same case for North Korea.
But the difference between Iran and North Korea is the stability of the regime (and the consistency of their inconsistency). Iran is not. They've got a haywire system going on. Ahmadinejad, the douchebag that he is, actually gets criticized by conservatives for being too soft. And it's unknown what role he plays in actually shaping Iranian nuclear policy. They've got vague irrational values and an unpredictable succession system. How this regime evolves is anyone's guess.
As bad as military action seems, it just seems like a lower risk than letting them have nuclear weapons from this point on to the future.
Hoz on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
So basically people are already jumping to the conclusion that nuclear reactor equals nuclear weapons and we need to act ZOMG NOW NOW NOW.
That'd be a pretty big mistake, as has been illustrated above.
Yeah, I've been meaning to ask: exactly which kind of reactor are we talking here?
Someone mentioned it being a light water reactor, but I didn't see a source along with it. If it's true though, I mean, they're not going to be stealing the fuel from the reactor and making a bomb with it.
Henroid on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
So basically people are already jumping to the conclusion that nuclear reactor equals nuclear weapons and we need to act ZOMG NOW NOW NOW.
That'd be a pretty big mistake, as has been illustrated above.
Who is jumping to this conclusion? I mean, they had international help in setting up this civilian nuclear program.
It'll probably do some good because then we can say "Hey see how this civilian program with international support worked out so well for you, now you have no excuse for hiding other nuclear programs".
Yea it isn't that, but Iran knows full well that's the reaction it'll get and I think they're trying to provoke that reaction.
I'm not an expert on the Persian mindset, but nobody likes to be told they can't do something
Honestly...
It's being told not to be able to have it's own nuclear power by the only country in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons against another country, twice, and a country openly hostile to them that already has nuclear weapons, illegal ones, and unlike itself is not a participant in the NPT. They are being threatened by military response even before their first reactor has started.
They may be evil, but that doesn't mean that they aren't right in this case.
Yea it isn't that, but Iran knows full well that's the reaction it'll get and I think they're trying to provoke that reaction.
I'm not an expert on the Persian mindset, but nobody likes to be told they can't do something
Honestly...
It's being told not to be able to have it's own nuclear power by the only country in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons against another country, twice, and a country openly hostile to them that already has nuclear weapons, illegal ones, and unlike itself is not a participant in the NPT. They are being threatened by military response even before their first reactor has started.
They may be evil, but that doesn't mean that they aren't right in this case.
Building a nuclear reactor when they don't, strictly speaking, need one because the world says they can't isn't an evil reason for doing it. Besides it's a symbol of national progress, there's plenty of reasons to want to have nuclear reactors.
If Europe told the US we absolutely weren't allowed to have solar panels under any circumstance you'd see the reddest of red states out there tearing down coal plants and replacing them with solar panels - the US really has no right to tell anyone they can't have a nuclear plant.
The international community does have a right to stop nuclear weapons proliferation, but that's not what is happening in Iran right now, so they don't really have a right to say shit.
Yeah, I wouldn't argue a military operation to prevent them getting nuclear weapons on the idea that they'll end up using them the first chance they get on Israel.
But I don't think they're all that rational either. If they were rational they wouldn't be the type of regime they are. One could make the same case for North Korea.
But the difference between Iran and North Korea is the stability of the regime (and the consistency of their inconsistency). Iran is not. They've got a haywire system going on. Ahmadinejad, the douchebag that he is, actually gets criticized by conservatives for being too soft. And it's unknown what role he plays in actually shaping Iranian nuclear policy. They've got vague irrational values and an unpredictable succession system. How this regime evolves is anyone's guess.
As bad as military action seems, it just seems like a lower risk than letting them have nuclear weapons from this point on to the future.
The nuclear weapons policy, if there is any, is largely in the hands of the military officers, which is pretty conservative but I'd figure they know better then anyone not to start a goddamn nuclear war. Any future weapons would be in their hands and since this is not a democracy they would only be answerable to Khamenei, who is also not a stupid or irrational person.
The actual chance of a militant group or an irrational rebellion getting it's hands on nuclear weapons, should Iran ever achieve them, is zero. I don't think there is a single rebellion or a regime change in the history of the world where the victorious participant instantly decided to destroy itself once they have achieved power.
Ahmadinejad is actually not really that important here. He doesn't play any role in shaping Iran's nuclear policy, I thought that was quite clear. He's just a public face for all of it, the Supreme Leader reigns...well, supreme.
I don't think there is a single rebellion or a regime change in the history of the world where the victorious participant instantly decided to destroy itself once they have achieved power.
Hahaha! What? What is this supposed to be a response to?
Yeah ok, regimes don't consciously commit suicide in whatever moment you seem to have in mind. Except they do get destroyed, they do lose power, they do change.
Ahmadinejad is actually not really that important here. He doesn't play any role in shaping Iran's nuclear policy, I thought that was quite clear. He's just a public face for all of it, the Supreme Leader reigns...well, supreme.
Yeah, a huge national effort to rig an election usually isn't done on behalf of the PR guy.
I don't think there is a single rebellion or a regime change in the history of the world where the victorious participant instantly decided to destroy itself once they have achieved power.
Hahaha! What? What is this supposed to be a response to?
Yeah ok, regimes don't consciously commit suicide in whatever moment you seem to have in mind. Except they do get destroyed, they do lose power, they do change.
Ahmadinejad is actually not really that important here. He doesn't play any role in shaping Iran's nuclear policy, I thought that was quite clear. He's just a public face for all of it, the Supreme Leader reigns...well, supreme.
Yeah, a huge national effort to rig an election usually isn't done on behalf of the PR guy.
Yes, but deciding to use a nuclear weapon would be a conscious choice of suicide, and anyone except the absolutely and utterly insane would realize that. World politics haven't really allowed those people to get into power for a long time, since we let go of proclaiming people kings and emperors just because they were born into a particular family.
Again, people don't seem to be finding any sort of an actual reason why Iran shouldn't have a nuke...just a vague course of
1. Iran gets a nuke
2. ??????
3. Someone utterly insane and suicidal somehow gets power and nukes another country.
The same thing applies to every other country with nukes ever. It's not based on reality, just fear that is not founded on anything happening to Iran right now. I'm sorry, but I don't find wild predictions of future a valid reason for military action.
And they do that when you don't want the PR guy to intersect his own opinions into things and rock the boat on a crucial time. The Constitution of Iran gives the control over foreign policy, armed forces and ultimately nuclear policy to the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad does not make final decisions in these things.
My position on Ahmadinejad is that we don't know the extent of his influence on the government, and we really don't. Your claims that he is just the pr guy are thinly supported, so I don't know why you would choose to push that.
And yeah, I agree that actually using a nuclear weapon would be detrimental to the regime of a smaller nation. That still doesn't give me much comfort. No one has used a nuclear weapon to destroy their own regime, but there's a short history of nuclear weapons and a much shorter history of countries like Iran having them. And there's a long history of nations and regimes acting irrationally and not in their best interest, no one consciously chose to destroy themselves they were just deluded enough to believe actions that would destroy them wouldn't.
Oh yeah, so far no one has used a nuclear weapon to our detriment, so let's not give a shit about anyone getting one. Kind of a stupid mindset to have.
The only way to exclude the use of a nuclear weapon by Iran is to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
But we do know his record on internal issues such as economic policy and disregard for human rights, and we do have pretty good sources on how little he interferes with the military and some of his disagreements with the Supreme Leader. He has shown nothing in the nuclear policy but his voice, he was never an official member of the Revolutionary Guards nor has substantial ties there, he certainly isn't too popular amongst most of the clerics, and it's pretty demonstrated that he has no hold over the Supreme Leader. We know that the office of the President doesn't enable him to exercise any substantial powers, and the only reason he usually makes it to the news are his retarded remarks. So why should we think anything else? Because you have a gut feeling?
And what I am saying is that the possibility of Iran using a nuclear weapon are about as large as with any other nation under the current political atmosphere and for any forseeable future. Wake me from cryogenic sleep once the Neo-Islamist Union has wrestled control of Tehran from the Reborn Persian Empire and nukes French-China or something and call me an asshole if you want.
But I'd rather not kill dozens or more and risk a military conflict over predictions that have no basis in reality, reason or morals whatsoever. Especially when it comes from complete and utter hypocrisy.
So yeah, I' don't like Iran, and I don't want them to try attain nuclear weapons because it gets dumb reactions out of people and might risk dumb people trying to bomb them over the same thing they themselves have been doing for decades. But I personally don't really care that much if they do. The world has managed to cope with half a dozen as oppressive and bad nations having them, and never using them thus far.
I don't think any country is "let in", you fight tooth and nail about them until they get the nuke, then when they get them...well, shit, now they have the nuke. Get a seat and grab a beer from the fridge.
This Khan guy is pretty much the epitome of an evil scientist though.
But we do know his record on internal issues such as economic policy and disregard for human rights, and we do have pretty good sources on how little he interferes with the military and some of his disagreements with the Supreme Leader. He has shown nothing in the nuclear policy but his voice, he was never an official member of the Revolutionary Guards nor has substantial ties there, he certainly isn't too popular amongst most of the clerics, and it's pretty demonstrated that he has no hold over the Supreme Leader. We know that the office of the President doesn't enable him to exercise any substantial powers, and the only reason he usually makes it to the news are his retarded remarks. So why should we think anything else? Because you have a gut feeling?
When you come up with something concrete detailing his influence or non-influence over the nuclear program, you feel free to post about it. If we went by these "reliable sources" and "internal conflicts" then Iran would absolutely have no nuclear weapons ambitions because the Ayatollah has said they're unislamic and he is the supreme leader. Since him being the supreme supreme leader then this reported contradiction means the Iranian regime has absolutely no nuclear ambition.
Except we don't have such a crystal clear idea of how the dynamics of internal Iranian politics work. We don't even have that for our own governments. Acknowledging this isn't earth shattering. Why you're huffing up and pretending so is a little mystery here.
And your skepticism about the possibility of a nuclear weapon being used is baffling. You think it's unrealistic? I think it's improbable. But millions of people being wiped out instantly by the decision of a small group of people isn't something I want to trust to improbable, I trust that to impossible.
And every tyrannical regime we allow to have these weapons is a huge increase in the chances that they'll be used and an even bigger increase that even more tyrannical regimes will want such weapons. Even if all this does is empower tyranny, it's a terrible thing to let happen. That you somehow object to preventing this trend because it's "hypocrisy" is fucking pathetic.
Hoz on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
On one hand, I'm a strong believe that MAD works, and we have proof of that in every international dealing since the Cold War. So in that context, the best way to assure peace is to give everyone nuclear weapons.
On the other, I'm not sure how well MAD will work with nations and political bodies, like fundamentalist Islam or whatever crazy shit you can call North Korea, who apparently don't have any strong opposition to being killed for their cause.
When you come up with something concrete detailing his influence or non-influence over the nuclear program, you feel free to post about it. If we went by these "reliable sources" and "internal conflicts" then Iran would absolutely have no nuclear weapons ambitions because the Ayatollah has said they're unislamic and he is the supreme leader. Since him being the supreme supreme leader then this reported contradiction means the Iranian regime has absolutely no nuclear ambition.
Except we don't have such a crystal clear idea of how the dynamics of internal Iranian politics work. We don't even have that for our own governments. Acknowledging this isn't earth shattering. Why you're huffing up and pretending so is a little mystery here.
The official stance of the Iranian government is that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons and their program is strictly peaceful. They, including Ahmadinejad, including every single representative of that government, including every scientist and so on, have never claimed anything else. It makes sense that the Supreme Leader issues statements relating to that official stance, did it surprise you?
And your skepticism about the possibility of a nuclear weapon being used is baffling. You think it's unrealistic? I think it's improbable. But millions of people being wiped out instantly by the decision of a small group of people isn't something I want to trust to improbable, I trust that to impossible.
And every tyrannical regime we allow to have these weapons is a huge increase in the chances that they'll be used and an even bigger increase that even more tyrannical regimes will want such weapons. Even if all this does is empower tyranny, it's a terrible thing to let happen. That you somehow object to preventing this trend because it's "hypocrisy" is fucking pathetic.
And to postpone this improbably small chance you are willing to kill people, risk war, and possibly make the chances even bigger in the future. I don't, sorry. I don't want to cause a conflict in an attempt to prevent things that only happen in wild fantasies. And I don't object into preventing the trend, I object into preventing the trend by resorting into armed means.
We better start a war with North Korea though, the death count will probably be smaller then in the event of a nuclear war. Now, before they are able to launch their nukes!
Yes, I'm willing to kill people to stop nuclear proliferation among non-democratic states.
And to categorize the possibility of nuclear weapon use as a "wild fantasy" is, you know I don't have a single word or one I can use here for how bad that is.
I mean, how many documented situations where nuclear war was turned into a concrete possibility are there? I know of two, one with the Soviet Union and another with Russia under Yeltsin. Neither of those cases involved a regime that held televised prayers where the participants were government workers chanting continuously "DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO ISRAEL!"
Hoz on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited August 2010
Would you be willing to kill people without any proof of their capability?
I'd be willing to trust my government to kill people based on their suspicion of capability.
It's the type of thing I wish we would have done with Iraq. Actually, we did do this with Iraq under the Clinton administration and it worked! Too bad we didn't realize it, or care to.
I'd be willing to trust my government to kill people based on their suspicion of capability.
It's the type of thing I wish we would have done with Iraq. Actually, we did do this with Iraq under the Clinton administration and it worked! Too bad we didn't realize it, or care to.
It's not popular to trust one's government (regardless of country) but to say you'd trust the US government to kill based on suspicions after all thats happened just in the last ten years baffles me.
I can't really probe my sentiment to what extent it would hold true under what circumstances.
Our government is democratic, and the guy I trusted and vast my vote for in the last election, he won. He's the head honcho now. I trust that guy's judgment, just plain as it is.
Now if a guy I didn't trust were in power. I'd still expect him to do what's in his power to act against nuclear weapon proliferation, even if that meant through violence. And this is even the type of situation where you have to trust suspicion.
I'd support these efforts just as much as I'd support the oversight of them. If we fuck up and innocent people needlessly die in a strike, that would be a terrible thing but I think it'd be worse to do nothing and let nuclear proliferation envelop the globe. Because I don't have just suspicion telling me that spells doom for all of us.
Posts
A single strike isn't going to eliminate it. Are you really thinking that U.S. and Israel can just sustain constant bombing operations against Iran and not recieve any sort of backlash from them? Remember, this wouldn't be destroying a single half-ready reactor like in Iraq or Syria. The distances would be larger, the Straits of Hormuz could be closed, Syria and Hezbollah might act on Israel's border and Iran on Iraq/Afghanistan border. Russia and China would be quite pissed too. Nothing eliminates the chance of an Iranian response, which honestly pretty much every set law of international belligerence gives them the right to, including the ones U.S. and Israel usually operates on.
I really don't see it being worth the cost, especially when again, most analysts agree that you could only postpone it by a short time. Meanwhile, what does Iran lose? Some technology, some people. It gains more support from the population and the world at large and clear, undeniable justification against hostile acts towards both U.S. and Israel. It really has no risks in this game.
But aren't those two movements the very reason why Iran is (maybe) trying to get the bomb? I mean it seems like that would just be going in circles. You would be giving up to those movements, eg. just strenghtening in Iran's mind that it really DOES need nuclear weapons.
Honestly, do you think a combined U.S./Israel military strike killing dozens of Iranians would make Iran more or less radical, more or less anti-western, more or less to actually do something on weapons terms?
And would those two groups really change their fucked-up ways? Did they when U.S. invaded Iraq, or when Israel keeps killing Palestinians? Or did they just get more radical and uncooperative?
- The Iranians would attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. Would they succeed in doing so with the biggest navy in the world standing in their way? I'd wager against it. This is one of those things that is listed as a result of Israel doing it alone. And, this would also screw Iran over most of all.
- And everyone keeps pointing to this mysterious military response from Iran against America. What would they actually do? Yeah, they'd want to kill American soldiers. But how would they do this without a deeper escalation by the US military against Iranian military installations? Good chance they would do something. Great chance they would get fucked over.
- You really think the US military wouldn't be able to completely take control of the Iranian air space and commit to a sustained bombing campaign? The US obliterated an entire military in 1990 with an air campaign, so why wouldn't they be able to act against a few installations in 2010+? That Iran could somehow outpace a bombing campaign seems ridiculous to me. Do they have mutant ants working their construction?
- So, uh, Syria would respond in collusion with Iran in response to Iran getting bombed even though Syria didn't do shit when their own reactor got bombed by Israel? Ok.
- It really has no risks in this game? What? Being bombed is kind of a risk and isn't much of a game. Their economy would get fucked, and all that results from that would follow. I'm sorry, I don't know how you can maintain that "oh being on the sharp end of US military action wouldn't be so bad for them". Seriously? What the fuck? The US might not succeed, but Iran would be royally fucked.
- Nothing mysterious about it. Provide U.S's enemies with money and materiel and volunteer forces against them. It wouldn't really be the end of the United States but it would mean that more Americans would be killed.
- Bosnia is a lot lot lot lot smaller then Iran. And Iran's military is a lot lot lot lot bigger too. You realize that you can't oblitrate the military forming with 545,000 active personnel and millions of it's reserves through bombing campaigns? Ground forces are needed as well - and were involved in Bosnia too, in the aftermath - and that would require a full scale invasion.
- Maybe it wouldn't, maybe it would. Orchard was much more vague then this operation, a sustained bombing campaign against several different targets, would be. Hezbollah certainly would act and that would open an actual front in the war.
- It's not really a risk. It's nothing that Iran can't rebuild or replace now that they have the knowhow and support of Russia and China, and it would gain it huge PR advantages. "Royally fucked" would indicate that Iran would lose something permanently, or something decisive would happen.
Either way, the hypothetical campaign would either end in Iran not really losing anything, or it escalating into an actual war. Neither outcome would be worth the costs, and the risks aren't worth the operation either.
And again, Iran hasn't done anything to warrant any bombing either.
If it is our only option left, it is worth trying. Nuclear weapons are bad things. Theocratic regimes with fascist tendencies are bad also. Combining these things would be an exponentially worse thing.
And why do you think they would have the support of Russia or China? Russia and China don't give a shit about them. China cares about their oil. They would be displeased with trade being interrupted but they can just as easily blame Iran for being stubborn as they can the US. And Iran attempting to lock down the Strait of Hormuz wouldn't put them on China's bff list.
Also can we trust the Russians to keep this mo'fucker secure? For the moment I say yes.
Also nuclear reactor fuel is refined differently than fuel for a nuclear weapon would have to be. So it's not like they're going to remove stuff from the reactor to make a bomb. Doesn't quite work that way. But I bet we'll be hearing this kind of talk anyway from people who don't know any better or just like to make people in the country feel scared.
Russia's been coming around to our way of thinking on this recently. It's one of the quiet diplomatic coups of the current administration.
And one of the primary reasons Iran is now the regional power in the area
nobody to blame but ourselves
The Gulf War also included eight aircraft carriers, 959,600 ground forces and 3,318 tanks...and the support of Saudi-Arabia and other Arab States which wouldn't happen if Israel was involved. U.S. still had losses. I'm pretty sure U.S. won't be able to carry out a sustained bombing campaign without a ground base. I don't think any of Iran's border countries would agree on co-operating in war against Iran either over a nuclear reactor. Saddam did invade Kuwait.
They would have the support of Russia and China because those two states are atagonistic towards U.S. seem to relish in some sort of diplomatic victories around this issue, and have military and energy co-operation? I don't mean military support, but Russia and China would condemn an unilateral attack without provocation in the news against someone with whom they have close relations because that's the sort of thing they do.
Iran is also the second largest oil exporter of OPEC. It wouldn't need the Straits of Hormuz to make a dent on oil around the world.
And again, plenty of regimes as bad as Iran have nuclear weapons and the world doesn't seem to be hanging on the edge of destruction. I still haven't heard an actual concrete threat on this thread that an Iranian nuke would pose, at least not one that would warrant an military response just because of a chance of it happening.
That'd be a pretty big mistake, as has been illustrated above.
Yeah, I've been meaning to ask: exactly which kind of reactor are we talking here?
I'm not an expert on the Persian mindset, but nobody likes to be told they can't do something
And it's not like Iran doesn't have a valid economic basis for nuclear power or need for modernization.
One solution will kill anywhere from dozens to hundreds of people...and another solution won't?
As long as the United States position on the issue is, "Good for you you have a reactor now" then things should be gravy. Thankfully we have a Democrat in office who will likely have that reaction, along with "If they're peacefully seeking energy," yadda yadda.
Meanwhile our political right is going to be screaming bloody-fuckin'-murder.
But I don't think they're all that rational either. If they were rational they wouldn't be the type of regime they are. One could make the same case for North Korea.
But the difference between Iran and North Korea is the stability of the regime (and the consistency of their inconsistency). Iran is not. They've got a haywire system going on. Ahmadinejad, the douchebag that he is, actually gets criticized by conservatives for being too soft. And it's unknown what role he plays in actually shaping Iranian nuclear policy. They've got vague irrational values and an unpredictable succession system. How this regime evolves is anyone's guess.
As bad as military action seems, it just seems like a lower risk than letting them have nuclear weapons from this point on to the future.
Someone mentioned it being a light water reactor, but I didn't see a source along with it. If it's true though, I mean, they're not going to be stealing the fuel from the reactor and making a bomb with it.
But we're not letting them have nuclear weapons. We're letting them have nuclear energy.
It'll probably do some good because then we can say "Hey see how this civilian program with international support worked out so well for you, now you have no excuse for hiding other nuclear programs".
Honestly...
It's being told not to be able to have it's own nuclear power by the only country in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons against another country, twice, and a country openly hostile to them that already has nuclear weapons, illegal ones, and unlike itself is not a participant in the NPT. They are being threatened by military response even before their first reactor has started.
They may be evil, but that doesn't mean that they aren't right in this case.
Light water reactor, not sure what model.
Building a nuclear reactor when they don't, strictly speaking, need one because the world says they can't isn't an evil reason for doing it. Besides it's a symbol of national progress, there's plenty of reasons to want to have nuclear reactors.
If Europe told the US we absolutely weren't allowed to have solar panels under any circumstance you'd see the reddest of red states out there tearing down coal plants and replacing them with solar panels - the US really has no right to tell anyone they can't have a nuclear plant.
The international community does have a right to stop nuclear weapons proliferation, but that's not what is happening in Iran right now, so they don't really have a right to say shit.
The nuclear weapons policy, if there is any, is largely in the hands of the military officers, which is pretty conservative but I'd figure they know better then anyone not to start a goddamn nuclear war. Any future weapons would be in their hands and since this is not a democracy they would only be answerable to Khamenei, who is also not a stupid or irrational person.
The actual chance of a militant group or an irrational rebellion getting it's hands on nuclear weapons, should Iran ever achieve them, is zero. I don't think there is a single rebellion or a regime change in the history of the world where the victorious participant instantly decided to destroy itself once they have achieved power.
Ahmadinejad is actually not really that important here. He doesn't play any role in shaping Iran's nuclear policy, I thought that was quite clear. He's just a public face for all of it, the Supreme Leader reigns...well, supreme.
Yeah ok, regimes don't consciously commit suicide in whatever moment you seem to have in mind. Except they do get destroyed, they do lose power, they do change.
Yeah, a huge national effort to rig an election usually isn't done on behalf of the PR guy.
Yes, but deciding to use a nuclear weapon would be a conscious choice of suicide, and anyone except the absolutely and utterly insane would realize that. World politics haven't really allowed those people to get into power for a long time, since we let go of proclaiming people kings and emperors just because they were born into a particular family.
Again, people don't seem to be finding any sort of an actual reason why Iran shouldn't have a nuke...just a vague course of
1. Iran gets a nuke
2. ??????
3. Someone utterly insane and suicidal somehow gets power and nukes another country.
The same thing applies to every other country with nukes ever. It's not based on reality, just fear that is not founded on anything happening to Iran right now. I'm sorry, but I don't find wild predictions of future a valid reason for military action.
And they do that when you don't want the PR guy to intersect his own opinions into things and rock the boat on a crucial time. The Constitution of Iran gives the control over foreign policy, armed forces and ultimately nuclear policy to the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad does not make final decisions in these things.
And yeah, I agree that actually using a nuclear weapon would be detrimental to the regime of a smaller nation. That still doesn't give me much comfort. No one has used a nuclear weapon to destroy their own regime, but there's a short history of nuclear weapons and a much shorter history of countries like Iran having them. And there's a long history of nations and regimes acting irrationally and not in their best interest, no one consciously chose to destroy themselves they were just deluded enough to believe actions that would destroy them wouldn't.
Oh yeah, so far no one has used a nuclear weapon to our detriment, so let's not give a shit about anyone getting one. Kind of a stupid mindset to have.
The only way to exclude the use of a nuclear weapon by Iran is to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
And what I am saying is that the possibility of Iran using a nuclear weapon are about as large as with any other nation under the current political atmosphere and for any forseeable future. Wake me from cryogenic sleep once the Neo-Islamist Union has wrestled control of Tehran from the Reborn Persian Empire and nukes French-China or something and call me an asshole if you want.
But I'd rather not kill dozens or more and risk a military conflict over predictions that have no basis in reality, reason or morals whatsoever. Especially when it comes from complete and utter hypocrisy.
So yeah, I' don't like Iran, and I don't want them to try attain nuclear weapons because it gets dumb reactions out of people and might risk dumb people trying to bomb them over the same thing they themselves have been doing for decades. But I personally don't really care that much if they do. The world has managed to cope with half a dozen as oppressive and bad nations having them, and never using them thus far.
It's just a comic.
This Khan guy is pretty much the epitome of an evil scientist though.
Except we don't have such a crystal clear idea of how the dynamics of internal Iranian politics work. We don't even have that for our own governments. Acknowledging this isn't earth shattering. Why you're huffing up and pretending so is a little mystery here.
And your skepticism about the possibility of a nuclear weapon being used is baffling. You think it's unrealistic? I think it's improbable. But millions of people being wiped out instantly by the decision of a small group of people isn't something I want to trust to improbable, I trust that to impossible.
And every tyrannical regime we allow to have these weapons is a huge increase in the chances that they'll be used and an even bigger increase that even more tyrannical regimes will want such weapons. Even if all this does is empower tyranny, it's a terrible thing to let happen. That you somehow object to preventing this trend because it's "hypocrisy" is fucking pathetic.
On the other, I'm not sure how well MAD will work with nations and political bodies, like fundamentalist Islam or whatever crazy shit you can call North Korea, who apparently don't have any strong opposition to being killed for their cause.
The official stance of the Iranian government is that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons and their program is strictly peaceful. They, including Ahmadinejad, including every single representative of that government, including every scientist and so on, have never claimed anything else. It makes sense that the Supreme Leader issues statements relating to that official stance, did it surprise you?
And to postpone this improbably small chance you are willing to kill people, risk war, and possibly make the chances even bigger in the future. I don't, sorry. I don't want to cause a conflict in an attempt to prevent things that only happen in wild fantasies. And I don't object into preventing the trend, I object into preventing the trend by resorting into armed means.
We better start a war with North Korea though, the death count will probably be smaller then in the event of a nuclear war. Now, before they are able to launch their nukes!
And to categorize the possibility of nuclear weapon use as a "wild fantasy" is, you know I don't have a single word or one I can use here for how bad that is.
I mean, how many documented situations where nuclear war was turned into a concrete possibility are there? I know of two, one with the Soviet Union and another with Russia under Yeltsin. Neither of those cases involved a regime that held televised prayers where the participants were government workers chanting continuously "DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO ISRAEL!"
It's the type of thing I wish we would have done with Iraq. Actually, we did do this with Iraq under the Clinton administration and it worked! Too bad we didn't realize it, or care to.
It's not popular to trust one's government (regardless of country) but to say you'd trust the US government to kill based on suspicions after all thats happened just in the last ten years baffles me.
Our government is democratic, and the guy I trusted and vast my vote for in the last election, he won. He's the head honcho now. I trust that guy's judgment, just plain as it is.
Now if a guy I didn't trust were in power. I'd still expect him to do what's in his power to act against nuclear weapon proliferation, even if that meant through violence. And this is even the type of situation where you have to trust suspicion.
I'd support these efforts just as much as I'd support the oversight of them. If we fuck up and innocent people needlessly die in a strike, that would be a terrible thing but I think it'd be worse to do nothing and let nuclear proliferation envelop the globe. Because I don't have just suspicion telling me that spells doom for all of us.