Iran's Nuclear Ambitions 1032
selven wrote in with something a bit offtopic for Slashdot, but I figured it's worth a discussion today. He writes "Following Iran's revelation regarding its secret nuclear enrichment plant, western leaders are banding together against it, saying that it violates Articles 2 and 3 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and suggesting serious sanctions against the country if it refuses to back down on its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and that it's not fair for the US to be criticizing them in this way while having thousands of nuclear warheads."
Can't blame them (Score:4, Insightful)
"Peaceful Use" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an expert, but the news reports seem to indicate that this new facility (at a military base) doesn't have the capacity to produce a useful quantity of enriched fuel for a power plant, but could potentially produce enough for 1-2 bombs per year.
Combine that with the fact that Iran flares enough natural gas daily to more than meet its internal energy generation requirements, pardon me for being a bit skeptical about their motives.
Oh noes! (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you do not begin considering the possibility of maybe one day relatively soon pondering the beginning of the dismantlement of your nuclear program - NOW - you might possibly maybe perhaps one day face SEVERE SANCTIONS ZOMG.
I mean, if that's ok with you."
Stating the obvious? (Score:1, Insightful)
Treat ain't worth the paper its written on (Score:2, Insightful)
and the sad part we will bicker about this until they use one on Israel or force Israel to do it first.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
A question of intent (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference is that in the last 50+ years, the U.S. has used it's nuclear arsenal exactly twice, and those during a time of war.
Iran, on the other hand, has repeatedly declared it's desire for the total annihilation of the the nation of Israel (among others).
Nor is the U.S. led and controlled by a radically conservative theocracy with a demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination. Absent IAEA verification of the peaceful nature of their nuclear program, Iran has no justification to be pointing fingers. Iran with nuclear power is scary. Iran with nuclear weapons doesn't bear thinking about.
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee,
Look the other way, for Israel.
Look the other way, for India.
Maybe proliferation is not the real issue, and they will find the excuse to demolish Persia - by hook or by crook.
Re:Stating the obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, on one side you have a county of war-mongering, religious fanatics and on the other side you have a country of war-mongering, religious fanatics.
You see the difference now?
Re:Can't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
If Iran proceeds with this, they are basically demanding Israel attack them, possibly with their own nuclear weapons.
Iran is playing a very dangerous game. Let's hope the Obama Administration is much more skillful than the previous administration.
Re:Treat ain't worth the paper its written on (Score:4, Insightful)
Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections [boards.ie]
Re:Stating the obvious? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, it is indeed a double standard. However, the countries condemning them haven't alluded to wiping their enemies off the face of the planet, as Iran has http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A question of intent (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor is the U.S. led and controlled by a radically conservative theocracy with a demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination.
True, however this has only been the case since the beginning of this year.
Who can blame them? (Score:3, Insightful)
So they want nukes? Who can blame them? Given the "western leader"'s previous behavior in the region, they would be fools not to get a strong deterrent.
Re:Treat ain't worth the paper its written on (Score:3, Insightful)
To be honest, I'm rather ambivalent about the constant bickering/fighting/posturing between certain countries and Israel. However, based what I've seen of Israel's reaction to overt threats in the past, I can't imagine that they'll allow this to go on for much longer. I suspect the US has been putting an enormous amount of pressure on them to not conduct an air raid(s) to take out the various facilities. That's not going to be enough to prevent a confrontation for much longer.
Re:"Peaceful Use" (Score:4, Insightful)
Combine that with the fact that Iran flares enough natural gas daily to more than meet its internal energy generation requirements, pardon me for being a bit skeptical about their motives.
Alternatively, Iran can produce nuclear energy for baseload energy while exporting their hydrocarbons for exports which might make more money. Or they can save their hydrocarbons for future use as oil/gas prices increases in the future. Or they can start now to prepare for the carbon-tax future.
Given the US long history for self-serving military intelligence, pardon me for being a bit skeptical about their motives. Face it, US hates Iran because Iran won't kowtow to the US government.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't just Iran becoming nuclear armed. There are several other countries (Venezuela comes to mind) that are watching Iran push the international community around and may feel they can do the same exact thing and go down the road of nuclear arming.
I don't trust the countries that DO have nukes to not blow up the planet, let alone the countries that harbor terrorists and put out threats of using them to wipe out another race. Iran must be dealt with.
Re:Treat ain't worth the paper its written on (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran launches one at Isreal, in which case it is 100% Iran's fault.
-Or-
Isreal launches one at Iran, in which case it is 100% Iran's fault.
The logic there is amazing. For the record, I'm not trying to say that it's 100% Isreal's fault either. Just trying to point out that it's a bit more complicated that your statement seems to imply.
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
so not funny (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahmadinejad: "Israel must be wiped off the map"
but they say they will not build nukes?......I thought something must be shifting to Bizarro world....
Re:The rhetoric increase is a gear-up for war (Score:2, Insightful)
The United States cannot afford, nor provide the soldiers for, another war.
Our troops are spread rather thin as it is.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Treat ain't worth the paper its written on (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what I was wondering. What about Iran?
I'm a fence sitter on this; I don't want them to have Nuclear Weapons, but I don't see how, as a country with thousands of them, we have any right to dictate their policy.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A question of intent (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. The revelation about W's Gog and Magog statements were a little unsettling. No wonder the world doesn't trust us.
Re:Stating the obvious? (Score:1, Insightful)
It most certainly is. But that is the way of international politics: Those in power wish to keep their power, and those not in power wish to get it. Those in power have all sorts of wacky arguments that they should keep power. In the colonial age, they argued that whites are Christian, more civilized and smarter than everyone else and need to help those "poor primitives" find Christian civilization with a firm hand. Today the argument is that the leaders of Iran are religious crazies bent on terror-nuking the rest of the world, conviniently ignoring that the US is the *only* country to use nuclear weapons against populated areas.
Or that while the US has started quite a number of wars in those 30 years that Iran has been an Islamic Republic, Iran has not started any. In fact, the US supported Saddam Husseins attack on Iran, while he used Chemical weapons to kill some 100,000 iranians.With Bush calling Iran a part of an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Iran, Iraq and North Korea, followed by an invasion of Iraq, it is not surprising if the leaders of Iran looked into ways of protecting themselves from being invaded by a warmongering superpower. Nuclear weapons are an obvious, if expensive and dangerous, choice.
They do, however, have one point: The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that someone decide to use them. This is why I think that Iran should not get nuclear weapons, and that Israel, Russia, USA, China, India, Pakistan, UK, France, North Korea, and others that posess them, should scrap that crap.
Yes, in some sense it isn't fair... (Score:1, Insightful)
But A) Iran signed the treaty too, B) if they don't want to abide by its terms they can always withdraw from it (that would be honest -- then they can hide whatever they want rather than break agreements saying they wouldn't), and C) although the U.S. and Russia (not to mention the other nuclear-armed countries) have dragged their feet for years, they have just negotiated a new nuclear weapons reduction treaty.
I've never understood Iran's real direction on this. For example, why have a heavy-water plant when the only nuclear power reactor they have planned doesn't use it (it's a pressurized water design that therefore needs the enrichment that people are so worried can be diverted to weapons production)? One possible reason for a heavy water plant: properly built, heavy water reactors are really useful for generating weapons-grade plutonium. For example, this is exactly how India made their first weapons -- not by enriching uranium, but by running uranium through a heavy water "research" reactor [wikipedia.org]. Uncoincidentally, Iran is also building a 40MW research reactor, apparently to come on line this year or next.
It sure as heck looks like they are pursuing the two well-known weapons paths: enriching uranium and generating weapons-grade plutonium (a different isotope mix from the usual plutonium generated in regular power plant reactors). If the enriched uranium is purely for power production, why the heavy water route too?
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
In a nuclear war, America is the only state capable of defeating China or Russia.
In a conventional war the US would require allies.
In a trade war, China can ruin the US economy - but they'd severely hurt themselves in the process. In a trade war, Russia influence is limited to cutting off gas supplies to Eastern Europe.
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
one thing really bothers me about commentary (Score:2, Insightful)
about iran and nukes:
"israel and usa has it (and used it), so why can't iran? typical western hypocrisy"
ok, if you are a westerner, a chinese, an indian, a russian, a resident of bora bora or lower botswana, wherever... in other words, no matter WHERE you are from, you are probably interested in nuclear nonproliferation. with that in mind, you would be interested in those states with current nuclear arsenals giving them up, correct? you would also be interested in NO OTHER STATES GETTING THEM. right? nuclear nonproliferation is something important to you? or is it not important you as your overriding conceptual and moral concern? is it not the most important issue to you?
so please, by all means, talk about western hypocrisy. the west is indeed hypocritical. but if western hypocrisy is more important to you than nuclear nonproliferation, then i call bullshit on your morality and your sense of priorities. hey: how about grudges against the west being LESS important than your interest in seeing nuclear weapons curtailed? say this instead of "why can't iran have them if the west has them": "i think iran shouldn't have nukes. oh, and btw, while we're on the subject, israel and usa should give up theres"
now you are being morally coherent in my book. now you are talking from a point of view of logic and morality and a set of guiding principles as the foremost concern in your mind. rather than "the usa has them so iran should have them, fairs fair". when you say that, i don't see morality or a human conscience, i see typical tribal backbiting
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
he didn't say "defeat" - to defeat you must have a victor.
he says "assure ... destruction" which means nothing of us. even if the US is wiped off the map so they would be too - there for destruction would be assured.
we do have enough warheads to carpet bomb them with nukes - while it doesn't seem like a good idea, for either side, it is the game of MAD.. which kept the cold war cold.
Re:Treat ain't worth the paper its written on (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not hypocrisy, it's experience. We've been there, done that, and gotten the backyard bomb shelters.
Once your country goes nuclear it's a whole new ballgame and it's a game no one can win with the best outcome being a perpetual tie.
If you're in the game and you see some hot-head with nothing to lose trying to join in it is in your and everyone else's interest to not let them in. There are only so many ways to keep them out, at least while being "nice". You ask them to stay out, you tell them to stay out or you won't let them play with some of your other toys.
Re:"Peaceful Use" (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations [wikipedia.org]
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, the best way to destabilize a ponderous, oppressive government such as Iran's is to ensure the growth of a strong middle class in the target country with an educated and politically active youth. Sanctions tend to do the opposite by denying (or reducing) a country's access to trade, economic growth, pharmaceuticals and health benefits, knowledge and innovation. It stigmatizes countries' populations against the world, which often entrenches hard-line governments with staunch supporters. Sanctions also reduce positive effect of the global community's political feedback: if a country is already a pariah, their leaders have little incentive to conform to accepted norms (e.g. human rights).
That's not to say that sanctions are never appropriate. It's just an observation on their effect.
Re:A question of intent (Score:4, Insightful)
Nor is the U.S. led and controlled by a radically conservative theocracy with a demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination.
True, however this has only been the case since the beginning of this year.
Agreed on the led, but not on the controlled. We voted out a leader because we didn't like the direction our country was headed. Iran is led by a non-elected religious figure in perpetuity, and attempts to vote in even a new figurehead were met with violent opression.
It's disingenuous to claim that those are the same thing.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got a pretty disingenuous way of explaining it there...
The *point* of nuclear weaponry *is* MAD. If we consider you a threat, and you don't have them--then you're by definition pretty much powerless to stop us. We do have the largest, best equipped and funded military in the world.
Telling Iran we don't want them to have nuclear weaponry is pretty much proof positive of our intent to attack them if we don't get our way at some point. Otherwise--it presumably doesn't matter, since there is such absolutely massive pressure *not* to fire a nuke once you have one. The entire point of a nuke is it makes it basically impossible to engage in a war of aggression against your homeland.
When we tell Iran we don't want them to have them--we're really telling them we intend to invade them. Fairness or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Do you seriously think Iran would launch at us? Even if they believe in 72 virgins, it would literally be the end of their world within 15 minutes.
CAPTCHA: deterred.
Re:Reminds me of Team America (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't underestimate how sanctions and exclusion from international talks/trade can ruin countries.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone needs to brush up on their history a bit.
When there's at least one "superpower" in charge, things are pretty chill.
When the "superpower" falls you don't get utopia, you get a warring states period.
People are selfish, short sighted, greedy bastards. The "superpower" isn't more enlightened, they just know that it is in their best interest (and they have self preservation as one of those interests) to have some restraint and civility. Get into a warring states situation and it's every bastard for themselves in a no-holds-barred deathmatch.
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think settlements can be considered as "just exist".
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who's "us"*, and why should Iran or Syria give a damn what we think? Try not to forget here that Iran is at the end of the day a sovereign nation of over 70 million people, and owes the west little and less. Saying that the Iranians are somehow not entitled to nuclear weapons by default, or have to be "allowed" to develop them, is as baseless as applying the concept of "fairness" to nuclear arsenals.
They have the money, means and motivation to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions, condemnations and diplomatic pressure can all be railed against them, but the reality is that short of using military force, the only people who can stop the Iranians developing the bomb are the Iranians. As someone who lives in a country without nuclear weapons, I for one do not see any moral justification in using such force as a means to such an end.
Frankly, given their usage history, it's clear that nuclear weapons are little more than an international dick waving competition. If the Iranians want to pull their yokes out and dangle them about with the rest of the boys, I really don't care. If that makes all the rest of the boys feel a bit smaller, well, I really couldn't care less.
*Oh the pun-age
Re:Can't blame them (Score:2, Insightful)
However if the Iranian government's past rhetoric wasn't full of talk about annihilation of another country I might be more sympathetic to that perspective. I'm not an Israel fanboi, but denying the holocaust and claiming you'll 'wipe them off the map' is grounds for the international community to lay the law down hard. Isral and Palastine aren't worth the deaths of millions no matter how you slice it.
India and Pakistan, as governments go, never had that kind violent, dooms-day rhetoric against anyone but each other. They would be in the same boat with Iran if they had.
Any country who's leaders publicly and openly threaten another nation with annihilation have no business with weapons that are capable of human extinction until they prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such a belief is no longer prevalent.
If Iran wants to be part of the global community they need to play the global game in a more constructive way.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran already has an intercontinental Delivery system what do you think that phoney satellite launch earlier this year was all about.
It is called the suicide bomber.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider their history....there have been countless efforts to wipe them off the face of the planet, from back in Biblical times to the Nazi regime. Yet not only are they still around, but they've managed to get their country re-established, in the same location, after not existing for hundreds of years.
That's one country I want to keep on our side, packing or not...
Mad, you 're mad... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Iran maintains that it nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and that it's not fair for the US to be criticizing them in this way while having thousands of nuclear warheads."
Not FAIR? FAIR? A country who's stated political objective, time and time again is "Death to Israel"?
I don't care if you're pro-Israel or not, its sheer madness to believe that Iran is really a peaceful country out to defend itself. Their leaders have stated again and again that the West (meaning Israel, the US, and capitalism) are sick and on the way out, that Jihad is the duty of every Muslim, and martyrdom is the highest calling. These people glorify death and war, and are looking to put every one on earth under the yoke of their twisted Islamic law. Its ridiculous to compare the US, faults and all, with Iran as a pair of equals with apposing viewpoints. These people are twisted, evil, and not worth such recognition, and I really don't understand your idiotic viewpoint. It always amazes me when people want to point fingers at past US injustices yet turn some strange, myopic eye to plain murderers and give them a pass.
Whatever your view point, I ask this; lets see how your view looks to you as soon as Iran has a nuclear weapon, and they will, unless Israel takes care of the situation.
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran was NOT in the best interests of any nation. It WAS in the best interests of British Petroleum. Let us be honest here: a democratic government was thrown under the bus for the sake of money, nothing more, and nothing less.
Yes, our past sins are haunting us.
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
Because "Mistakes were made" = "We're all evil puppy kickers."
Re:containment theory... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Optimus Prime?
Seriously, right now the US is fighting wars in 2 theaters and is limited by the will of the politicians in power. If American soil were occupied or under imminent threat of occupation, I don't think the politicians would 1) worry about popularity of the upcoming war poll numbers 2) need to worry about said poll numbers. Americans would band together, at least for a while, to expel and destroy with prejudice an occupying force just so we could get back down to the business of our own politics without outside influence.
--Mike
Re:containment theory... (Score:2, Insightful)
well what about those settlements?
why do they keep building them, and offer more reason to breed radicals amongst the muslims? I'm not talking about Golan highs, the future of Jerusalem or even the future of the refugees. Israel's continuous building of settlements in w Bank helps crazy radicals in the muslim world recruit more people.
It's seems that we got radicals on both sides.
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Score:-1, Not Politically Correct)
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. The American Military is capable of deploying a terrific volume of horrific violence. A volume and ferocity inconceivable to most. That's their job and they do an excellent job of it.
Re:Mad, you 're mad... (Score:3, Insightful)
"I don't care if you're pro-Israel or not, its sheer madness to believe that Iran is really a peaceful country out to defend itself."
I don't care if you're pro-Iran or not, its sheer madness to believe that Israel is really a peaceful country out to defend itself. It works both ways...
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, given their usage history, it's clear that nuclear weapons are little more than an international dick waving competition. If the Iranians want to pull their yokes out and dangle them about with the rest of the boys, I really don't care. If that makes all the rest of the boys feel a bit smaller, well, I really couldn't care less."
Trouble is, this is a country run by crazy religious zealots, that quote their religion when they blow stuff up. The powers that be over there, can't be trusted to 'play nice' with their nukes. They would be very likely to start shooting them off unprovoked.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:1, Insightful)
Someone needs to brush up on their history a bit.
When there's at least one "superpower" in charge, things are pretty chill.
When the "superpower" falls you don't get utopia, you get a warring states period.
People are selfish, short sighted, greedy bastards. The "superpower" isn't more enlightened, they just know that it is in their best interest (and they have self preservation as one of those interests) to have some restraint and civility. Get into a warring states situation and it's every bastard for themselves in a no-holds-barred deathmatch.
I don't understand what you mean by chill.
Name one US presidency that hasn't been involved in armed conflict during the superpower era.
Better yet, name one Christmas without our "boys" fighting somewhere abroad- "Happy Xmas (War Is Over) - John Lennon".
Then there are bloody revolutions everywhere in Latin America where the superpower has a hand. Same in Asia, the Middle East. Come to think of it Africa too.
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the US has nuclear weapons, Iran will have a legitimate reason to develop its own nuclear weapons. That is, to protect against American aggression.
The best way to avoid war with Iran is to disarm, pull our forces out of the region, and open trade with them. We need to help develop their middle class, show that we are not a threat, and give them a business interest in becoming more moderate.
You forgot the holding of hands and singing Kumbaya.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll say this silently, but I don't even think Israel ever had a nuclear weapon. I think it was and still is, just a big bluff, in order to stay safe. As a mafia-affiliated relative of my father once said: "the loaded gun frightens the one that it's pointed at. The empty gun frightens both the one it's pointed at, and the one holding it."
All the acrimony piled up on Israel because of their alleged nuclear program, is, strangely, playing into their hands, because that way they can be as safe as if they had a nuclear weapon - without having to invest the vast resources needed to acquire it.
Looking at this problem more broadly: to acquire nuclear weapons, a country has to have much more resources at their disposal. Iran, for instance, that has a GDP that dwarves that of Israel many times over. Or USA, Russia (former USSR), China, India and Pakistan. All of them huge countries with lots more money and mineral resources than Israel. North Korea, on the other hand ('cause I know you'd bring that one up), doesn't have the resources for a nuclear program, and hence doesn't have one. Sure, they have a nuclear research facility, but that a nuclear weapons program does not make. Another big bluff. In fact, North Korea has already a weapon equally as devastating as a number of warheads: they have a huge number of long-range (albeit not too accurate) artillery pieces lined up along the border with South Korea. If someone just sneezes at them, Seoul is fucked. I mean properly fucked, as if nuked.
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it tells the truth, which is contrary to Israeli values. ...be-tachblt ta`aseh lekh milchmh... "Through deception you can wage war, with this advice comes victory."
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
All-out war from Iran's perspective. An expensive military operation called "Glass Desert" from the US perspective. Assuming the nuke is positively identified as being from Iran, anyway.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said the same. Sometimes it's GOOD to have an 800 pound gorilla on the playground -- ready, willing, and able to knock heads together if the little boys get into a fistfight.
The problem with southwest Asia (and post-imperial Africa, for that matter) is that there are dozens of disparate cultures that all hate each other, and there ISN'T any 800 pound gorilla, so *everyone* feels free to swagger around, beat their chests, and try to bully their neighbours.
India is as solid as it is because its former dozen warring states (remember, it was not always a single country) got head-banged by the Brits during the Imperial era -- if that job had been finished, rather than abandoned as the British Empire fell apart, we might not have today's conflicts, or at least they'd be on a smaller scale. Witness that South America had an essentially enforced uniculture mainly courtesy of Spain, and considering its size has been relatively trouble-free (compared to Asia and Africa).
It's politically incorrect to say this, but.... Imperialism may be "evil" if your small state is the loser, but in the long view it appears to stop more trouble than it causes.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:1, Insightful)
every get the feeling you're a simple-minded fool?
yours is probably the most retarded comment i've ever seen on slashdot. honestly.
now go and crawl back under your rock like a good little bottom feeder.
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trouble is, this is a country run by crazy religious zealots, that quote their religion when they blow stuff up. The powers that be over there, can't be trusted to 'play nice' with their nukes. They would be very likely to start shooting them off unprovoked.
So why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, it is your assertion that enriching British Petroleum ultimately won the cold war, thereby justifying the fact that we replaced a democratic government with a spineless puppet of a dictator.
Oddly, a lot of people will buy into that theory.
If it is peaceful... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are only two reasons you want to build a uranium processing plant in a mountain:
A. It's bomb proof, in which case why are you worried about it getting bombed if it's purely for peaceful processes?
B. You're Dr. Evil.
I think we can safely say it's likely A, although I wouldn't rule out B with Ahmadinejad.
Re:The rhetoric increase is a gear-up for war (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe. It seems that finding new bodies to send to Afghanistan is already a problem
It's true, especially with Brits and Canadians planning to withdraw soon. However, this has more to do with the recent political failures in the handling of Afghanistan, as more and more people realize that there isn't going to be "proper" democracy there anytime soon, and that Western forces in the region are now essentially backing a corrupt, authoritarian regime with their guns, and at the cost of their lives.
The initial military invasion and occupation was by itself quite a success, however. And we don't have to occupy Iran to fix the nuclear problem - just take out their manufacturing capacity. Heck, just give green light to Israel, and they alone can take care of that, and ensure that it stays that way. This won't fix the underlying problem of Iran being a state that it is, of course, but that's not on the agenda at the moment.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Either every nation can have nuclear weapons, or no nation can. I'm not saying that "should be the case, I'm saying that over time, these are the only stable alternatives.
Only a cretin would expect an unfair scheme whereby only certain nations -- including historically aggressive nations such as the US, USSR, UK, and Israel -- are allowed to have nukes, to stand for long. The NPT requires us to work for disarmament; we have failed to do so.
And the fact that "we don't want you to have them" means beans. The world is not (and I know this is shocking news to many of my countrymen) run for the convenience and pleasure of the United States.
If we have nukes, we have no persuasive moral authority to tell other countries that they can't have them.
If we use force to prevent other nations from getting the bomb, everyone will notice that we attack only non-nuclear states, and will be more strongly motivated -- for their own protection -- to develop nuclear weapons in secret. Fission bombs are 1940s technology; if North Korea can make them, anybody with a decent industrial base can.
There are only two possible outcomes: everybody gets nukes who wants them (most nations will probably find it easier to ally with nuclear powers), or nobody (except maybe the U.N., with a dozen layers of safeguards) gets them.
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its clear.
After being attacked a few times, Israel conquered the area, and intends to keep it.
At one time or another, most countries have lost lands to conqueroring nations. Most ancient and modern states were constructed this way.
This idea that conquered lands should be "given back" is a relatively new idea. (And one that, oddly, does not apply to Arab states.)
Re:containment theory... (Score:1, Insightful)
Because Israel and India are responsible. A country that screams "DEATH TO ISRAEL" and "DEATH TO AMERICA" and "DEATH TO THE WEST" is neither responsible nor rational.
Re:containment theory... (Score:1, Insightful)
Eh? The US has a GDP 3 times [wikipedia.org] the size of China. It borrows money from China, but if there's a [real] trade war I doubt they'll be sending any of it back. And they're mostly borrowing it to buy crap made in China, which wouldn't be available anymore.
The US would be left to buy their goods from elsewhere (there's no shortage of cheap trade partners if domestic alternatives are not available) and China would sit on their huge pile of IOU's and goods nobody wants to buy. My money's on the US.
Why funny? (Score:5, Insightful)
The logic is simple. Change the internal reward structure for their behaviour with a win-win situation.
Re:containment theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Peaceful Use" (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be funny if Israel destroys Iran's nuclear centers in a preemptive strike, and Iran turns out to already _have_ nuclear weapons & delivery system?
It would be funny for all of twenty minutes.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
The point, maybe not his, is that one side of the argument has the means to enforce those preferences.
That is always the point.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
So, lets see what we have here.
An South Asian nation which is
- Predominantly Muslim
- oil rich
- run by autocrats
- recently out of a nasty war against one of its neighbors in which nobody really won
- already under sanctions for messing around with WMD's
- playing a cat and mouse game with UN inspectors regarding their WMD program
is being told by the UN Security council to straighten up, allow inspections, "or else". A number of those nations making those noises nonetheless have substantial above board and illegal investments in the nation in question.
Boy, that sounds familiar.
Some predictions: ...
- Security Council rhetoric will heat up, and...
- The overheated rhetoric will be ignored.
- Severe sanctions will be proposed, and...
- nations with interests in the country will see the impact on them, and
- those nations will start preaching temperance and further negotiations.
- The major nation left with little investment in the subject country will be the lone standard bearer for tough action, and...
- that major nation's leader will need to choose between acting alone or not acting at all.
So, if what you mean by "deft and subtle" means "doing the same thing and expecting a different result", I suggest you read a certain Big Book. Because race and political party don't mean shit when international oil money is involved.
Re:Why funny? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because in an insane world, logic is considered farcical.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh, there's a very real fear that nuclear weapons, if acquired by Iran, would lead to Nuclear war.
Either the leaders believe their own propaganda and really thing israel should be wiped off the map [nytimes.com] - or else Israel will believe the threat of Iran with nuclear weapons is too great, and order a pre-emptive strike which will THEN provoke Iran to launch them.
It's very hard to tell how much of what comes out of Iran is just saber-rattling propaganda, and how much is really batshit-crazy religious belief.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh really ? Don't you wonder what is the only country besides the US to have F-14s ? Iran...
Besides that they have a number of M-60 tanks and such, far from being a small player.
The Iranian civilian airliner DID take off from a military airport and was flying damn close to a conflict area and no-fly zone.
a) There was no no-fly zone for civilian airliners
b) It was clearly a civilian airliner, an Airbus radar signature is every different from a fighter plane, bomber of even a military transport
Finally, Iran can't possibly develop enough nuclear weapons or launch systems to "defend itself" against the U.S. The idea is ludicrous.
It's far from being ludicrous, Iran has US soldiers sitting in two of its neighbours, the US has repeatedly threatened regime change in Iran, and a nuke well placed on a US army attacking Iran would have a very very profound effect on US strategy and would prevent any invasion of Iran, something that chemical weapons can't do since the US army has gear to protect somewhat effectively against that.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly, the US is the source of Israels' 400 nukes. The US clearly violated articles 2 and 3 (the nukes can't just be left to sit in their caves - ongoing maintenance - so the violation is continual to this day).
Simpler solution: have some rabbi declare that there's been a cartographic error, and move Israel to a different neighborhood. I hear California and Nevada have lots of cheap houses.
Either that, or have an asteroid obliterate all the players in the region and call it an "act of god."
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
And as for being scared of them - let the arabs off the leash and then see how long they last. Just for fun, tell them if they use nukes the west will nuke them ! See how fucking tough they are then.
The ONLY reason the israelis are still in one piece is because of the USA. They gave them nukes, they send them money. As usual, Uncle Sam sticks his nose in and fucks an entire political region. You obviously don't know the first thing about the subject, how even the US were pissed when the Israelis declared their state (before the agreement was settled with the people whose lands they were taking away). Read a fucking book.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
Suicidal wackos don't end up running countries.
While I'd like to believe that, Saparmurat Niyazov [wikipedia.org] tends to make me think that it's a lot more complicated and sometimes complete and utter whackjobs do get a chance to seize complete control over fairly large countries.
Darfur (Score:3, Insightful)
I was reading an autobiography of one of the Sudanese exiles from the Darfur (What is the What?) region and he'd said something similar: British rule was good for Sudan since it kept the rivalries between north and south in check...plus the Brits built schools.
Seemed a bit better to him than mass human slaughter and exile.
Re:Can't blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
In a word, yes. It's the same reason the US isn't try to free Tibet or shoot Marxists in Nepal. The harsh reality is that this notion that the US can defend/promote democracy everywhere is ludicrous.
With Russia's still-precipitous population drop, the more reasonable approach, as it was during the Cold War, is to wait them out.
Besides, no matter how bad Russia is now, it ain't nothing compared to how bad it was during the Cold War. When you put things in perspective of where they were, say, thirty years ago, I don't really see how pissing on them now is going to buy much of anything.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... since you welcomed constructive criticism! Actually, I mostly agree. In short, you're point is we wont get sanctions against Iran, and even if we did, it'd make things worse, not better. Very insightful.
Here's my analysis. Iran is clearly building nukes, and will succeed unless stopped. They clearly arm Hezbollah in their efforts to destroy Israel. Israel has nukes now. What do you think Israel will do about it?
My guess is Israel will attack Iran. If it were possible to just blow up a plant or two and destroy Iran's nuclear efforts, I think they would, but apparently, that wont work. So, I think there is a very strong possibility Israel will nuke Iran preemptively. My guess is the only reason they haven't already is they're hoping diplomacy might work, and because they really don't want to piss off the whole freaking world worse than they already have. Even if Israel has the self-restraint to hold off on nuking Iran, other countries will having incentives for giving Hezbollah nukes and then blaming Iran, so Iran gets nuked in any case.
If you were an intelligent Iranian, you'd have to be able to figure this out. Nukes == death. Therefore, the Iranian leadership is crazy, and Israel would be crazy to not nuke Iran.
Anyway, I'm no Israel fan-boy. For a culture victimised by genocide, Israelis sure don't mind brutally oppressing whole populations for decades. Go figure. And, I kind of see how crazy people came to power in Iran: look at a map - we have our armies on their two longest borders in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries we just invaded! They have very reasonable cause to fear the US right now.
In summary.. Be afraid. Be very very afraid.
Re:containment theory... (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably because someone thinks pointing out the double-standard for Israel is un-american or something
I don't see any double standard because:
1. Ahmadinijad keeps threatening to destroy Israel.
2. No one in Israel said anything like that about Iran.
Re:containment theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes no sense. And isn't really applicable to much, even if it did. Sure, a lot of prejudice comes from bad experiences, but these experiences probably pale next to what we were raised with. And when it comes to the Middle East, I doubt that this plays any role whatsoever, barring the occasional antisemitic moron and anti-muslim/arab slob.
I, for example, have nothing against Jews or Arabs (or Muslims in general). I no more beef against there groups than I have against Christians, at least. I have met trash from all walks of life, and all cultures in about equal quantities. That said, I have major problems with Israel in general (Israel != Jews), I also have serious problems with many of the Muslim/Arab countries in the region (Iran/Syria/Lebenon/etc... != Muslim/Arabs). This, as obvious from my parentheticals, have nothing to do with ethnic groups or religions, but with the actions of governments. I am also quite fed up with the Government of the US, but most of my friends and family happen to be American (as am I).
Israel is an arrogant, human rights violating, violent bully, just like Iran. Israel might be a wee bit worse, since they are actively repressing and slaughtering their own citizens. This isn't saying Iran is much better, mind. If any country, run by Jews, or not, acted like Israel I would condemn their actions as well. Perhaps not quite as vocally, since Israel as a strangely strong voice in American politics, and has a huge and vocal lobby who is constantly busy trying to brand all dissent with them as racism. The Iranians, at least, don't have this.
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
thats strange... I just googled "israel threatens iran" and got 1.8 million results.
I guess you're a liar, or just good at ignoring reality.
Re:containment theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
So why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Re:containment theory... (Score:2, Insightful)
Iran is clearly building nukes
There is zero evidence for that, in fact your own CIA reports say Iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons.
Its orders of magnitude more difficult to create weapons grade uranium than what is needed for nuclear power.