Bring on Iran
- Thread starter Professor Danger!
- Start date
Arr0nax said:
Indeed, which is exactly why those countries are scrambling to obtain nuclear capability right?
Arr0nax said:
I think its something along the lines of "Nukes have a tendency to kill a lot of things in a very large radius" Little boy killed 140, 000 people alone. If i wielded the power to end a large number more than that, i would want to be very careful about my targets and collateral, as well as the political fallout that would result from use of such weapons
Arr0nax said:
And why? Because it was a realistic scenario. In a world where more and more countries have this ability, MAD is more relevant than ever.
Arr0nax said:
We're not there yet.
Personally i think MAD is part of the reason Iran (Among other country's) is pushing so hard to get the weapons in the first place. Currently, they are completely vulnerable to that sort of attack. Realistically speaking, if people want to nuke them it means they can't retaliate. You realize the principle of MAD was established and documented in the cold war and ever since or even before this happened, country's have been scrambling to obtain a Nuclear capability to match America and Russia.
I doubt the Iran want to obtain a nuclear arsenal cause they want a response in the case of a nuclear attack. This kind of scenario is unrealistic cause there is just no reason for such a measure. Why sould the US or any other nation use its ICBM to hit a nation like the Iran for example.
The issue with nuclear weapons is that they very much serve like a genie in a bottle. Once its out you just have no clue what might happen next. No one used so far after the second world war nuclear weapons in any conflict be it a large or small conflict. The risk did never outweight the benefit. Cause simply if you start using such weapons in the next conflict the other side or other nations might just think the same and you have here a risk to see such weapons used against you as well. Those weapons helped to prevent global conflicts comparable with world war 1 or 2, they didnt prevent smaller conflicts though but nuclear weapons are also a threat to the political leaders and not just soldiers or civilians like it is in a usual conflict. I would even go so far to say that without the Sovietunion and its Nuclear Arsenal there might never been any reason for Europe to grow so much together except in economical ways. But probably in the last 2000 years Europe was politicaly and from its military never so united like today.
Why nations like the Iran or N-Korea want nuclear weapons is simple. They fear a hegemonism by the US. Their politicans and leaders might have the idea their nations could eventualy see the same happen like in Afghanistan or Iraq. And com on, is that such a unlikely scenario ? Not when you think about how the US not so long ago talked about the Iran and N Korea. Iran definetly has not the capability to attack the US, but for the case they are attacked by the superior US military nuclear weapons will make sure that such a attack will not be without huge casualties.
And Aphyosis is right, the idea behind MAD is today probably just as important like it was in the past, if not in the same way with ICBMs and with clear visible frontlines but the build-up of arms is still present even today. And you can see many smaller nations playing with the idea to eventualy get nuclear weapons.
The issue with nuclear weapons is that they very much serve like a genie in a bottle. Once its out you just have no clue what might happen next. No one used so far after the second world war nuclear weapons in any conflict be it a large or small conflict. The risk did never outweight the benefit. Cause simply if you start using such weapons in the next conflict the other side or other nations might just think the same and you have here a risk to see such weapons used against you as well. Those weapons helped to prevent global conflicts comparable with world war 1 or 2, they didnt prevent smaller conflicts though but nuclear weapons are also a threat to the political leaders and not just soldiers or civilians like it is in a usual conflict. I would even go so far to say that without the Sovietunion and its Nuclear Arsenal there might never been any reason for Europe to grow so much together except in economical ways. But probably in the last 2000 years Europe was politicaly and from its military never so united like today.
Why nations like the Iran or N-Korea want nuclear weapons is simple. They fear a hegemonism by the US. Their politicans and leaders might have the idea their nations could eventualy see the same happen like in Afghanistan or Iraq. And com on, is that such a unlikely scenario ? Not when you think about how the US not so long ago talked about the Iran and N Korea. Iran definetly has not the capability to attack the US, but for the case they are attacked by the superior US military nuclear weapons will make sure that such a attack will not be without huge casualties.
And Aphyosis is right, the idea behind MAD is today probably just as important like it was in the past, if not in the same way with ICBMs and with clear visible frontlines but the build-up of arms is still present even today. And you can see many smaller nations playing with the idea to eventualy get nuclear weapons.
Also, everyone is ignoring the biggest failure of MAD: rogue use of nuclear weapons.
I think neither the US or the Sovietunion "really" cared about their people. Which nation does already anyway?Blakut said:
But I am sure the leaders in Iran care for them self. And even they know in a nuclear war they would not have much to laugh about.
The kind of "MAD" situation today is a different one to the cold war. It isnt between super powers but more about conflicts and political dominance. The risk of beeing attacked by any Superpower is much lower if they know that you have weapons that could cause very high casualties in their attacking force once they pushed you to the wall without any options left (hence why I dont believe Sadam had weapons of mass destruction ready, or he would have simply used them).
Sander said:
I think the terrorist that would really have access to such weapons would not use them as they are inteligent enough to know that in the end it will not help them either, if we are talking about religious fanatics. Those people have the wish to drive the forces out of teir "sacred land", not to destroy it completely. The potential for "dirty" bombs or nuclear attacks is sure there. But I seriously doubt it would happen, cause even they HAVE to know that this kind of action sure will cause some answer.
Relying on the intelligence of fanatics may not be a smart thing to do. It only takes one to mess it all up.
I think there are many ways to describe inteligence. And one should not forget what we see as "lunatic" actions makes perfect sense in their eyes.
For example I dont believe any second that people like Osama are "religious" or simple fanatics those people have seen some education in Arabia some sources claim he visited the al-Thagr-school in his past (remember from where he is coming! Hes not a uneducated Afghan which cant read or write!).
Bin Laden and his "generals" are well aware about the effect of propaganda for example and that alone speaeks for inteligence and I would say they enjoy very much the control they have as group and leaders. Are they sane? Definetly not. But I think one definetly can say that those people have inteligence.
We see many of those terrorists but I think not all of them are the same. One has to consider eventual eduction and time. There are groups that have grown up with the Soviet-Afghan war as children, groups that have it seen it as adults and also the fighting and now many people that fight cause of economical reasons (mercenaries if you want). For them US forces (or coalition forces for that matter) are just like any other occupant. Aprox. 80 or even 90% of the population (source German Wikipeadia) seem not to have any education, meaning they cant write and read. Another issue is that the land knows countless idioms but is mostly of islamic culture. That makes it very easy to manipulate people. And thats just Afghanistan. The Iraq is a nation with different kind of issues ...
Terrorists are not always uneducated camel lovers. Many of them dont know anything else then violance cause they have grown up with it or many times enough in the case of suicide terrorists are simply ... sick. There have been studies by Isralian psychologists which indiciate that a good potion of the terrorists that commit suicide attacks in Israel are usual people that had usual jobs and lives but loost most of it at some point and thus developed a form of depression now depressions usualy cause for people very often a wish for self-destruction and "suicide" behaviour, again it makes it easy for suggestions, Not happy with your curent life? Give it to Alah! He will takere about it". This kind of tactics are already known since the first christians went in to war (see crusaders or the cult of "assasins"), and definetly is nothing new. We tend to believe that only inherently crazy and lunatic people have to be terrorists or suicide attackers when in fact the reality is different. Many of them are either usual people forced one way or another in to such actions either by simple orders or colective "honor" since your comrads are doing it you dont want to be the one that is a coward (see the Kamikaze / Tokkotai, or German suicide bombers in WW2 ) or just simply dont see any other way in their life anymore. Scary is that certain groups already start training children and females as suicide attackers while in the past it was more common to simply recruit them. Those people even if sick or crazy are individuals they dont have access to such powerfull weapons like a nuclear bomb nor do they have the resources to build one. The people that "eventualy" have the resources are those that never would do a suicide attack. Those people would eventualy fight but they would not sacrifice their own lifes they just give orders to others to do that. And its doubtfull that they would if not pushed to the wall presh the button.
The only way to really combat terrorism is by taking away its roots. Giving people access to free education, taking care about health care and basic supplies. This and not "more" agressions or "more" weapons will in the long run work against terrorism.
For example I dont believe any second that people like Osama are "religious" or simple fanatics those people have seen some education in Arabia some sources claim he visited the al-Thagr-school in his past (remember from where he is coming! Hes not a uneducated Afghan which cant read or write!).
Bin Laden and his "generals" are well aware about the effect of propaganda for example and that alone speaeks for inteligence and I would say they enjoy very much the control they have as group and leaders. Are they sane? Definetly not. But I think one definetly can say that those people have inteligence.
We see many of those terrorists but I think not all of them are the same. One has to consider eventual eduction and time. There are groups that have grown up with the Soviet-Afghan war as children, groups that have it seen it as adults and also the fighting and now many people that fight cause of economical reasons (mercenaries if you want). For them US forces (or coalition forces for that matter) are just like any other occupant. Aprox. 80 or even 90% of the population (source German Wikipeadia) seem not to have any education, meaning they cant write and read. Another issue is that the land knows countless idioms but is mostly of islamic culture. That makes it very easy to manipulate people. And thats just Afghanistan. The Iraq is a nation with different kind of issues ...
Terrorists are not always uneducated camel lovers. Many of them dont know anything else then violance cause they have grown up with it or many times enough in the case of suicide terrorists are simply ... sick. There have been studies by Isralian psychologists which indiciate that a good potion of the terrorists that commit suicide attacks in Israel are usual people that had usual jobs and lives but loost most of it at some point and thus developed a form of depression now depressions usualy cause for people very often a wish for self-destruction and "suicide" behaviour, again it makes it easy for suggestions, Not happy with your curent life? Give it to Alah! He will takere about it". This kind of tactics are already known since the first christians went in to war (see crusaders or the cult of "assasins"), and definetly is nothing new. We tend to believe that only inherently crazy and lunatic people have to be terrorists or suicide attackers when in fact the reality is different. Many of them are either usual people forced one way or another in to such actions either by simple orders or colective "honor" since your comrads are doing it you dont want to be the one that is a coward (see the Kamikaze / Tokkotai, or German suicide bombers in WW2 ) or just simply dont see any other way in their life anymore. Scary is that certain groups already start training children and females as suicide attackers while in the past it was more common to simply recruit them. Those people even if sick or crazy are individuals they dont have access to such powerfull weapons like a nuclear bomb nor do they have the resources to build one. The people that "eventualy" have the resources are those that never would do a suicide attack. Those people would eventualy fight but they would not sacrifice their own lifes they just give orders to others to do that. And its doubtfull that they would if not pushed to the wall presh the button.
The only way to really combat terrorism is by taking away its roots. Giving people access to free education, taking care about health care and basic supplies. This and not "more" agressions or "more" weapons will in the long run work against terrorism.
I'm not saying they are, I'm not saying someone like Bin Laden doesn't have a big plan and I'm not saying these people are all crazy and out to just randomly hurt people.Crni Vuk said:
What I am saying is that it doesn't take every terrorist out there being insane to get a rogue nuclear explosion, it takes just one fanatical terrrorist group. And there are plenty examples of groups of fanatically insane people, most notably suicide cults.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
MAD probably doesn't apply to a terrorist group as a kind of deterrent at all, since there's no real nation for the "recipient" to strike back at.
But that didn't really stop Rumsfeld, Cheney and Co. from playing off populist fears/need for revenge to concoct a case to strike back at another country for dubiously manufactured reasons.
But that didn't really stop Rumsfeld, Cheney and Co. from playing off populist fears/need for revenge to concoct a case to strike back at another country for dubiously manufactured reasons.
I think the danger of rogue nuclear weapons is overstated. Primary reason: nuclear weapons are extremely well-guarded, even in an unstable shithole like Pakistan. In fact, all factors considered they are probably the best guarded items on planet Earth. In addition to being kept in secure installations, there are systems of kill switches and electronic locks in place that render a hypothetical stolen nuclear unusable, unless the thieves also manage to "steal" a couple of high-ranking - and cooperative - officials along with it. Simply put, to successfully hijack a usable nuclear weapon would require a level of infiltration that is beyond most intelligence agencies, let alone terrorist organizations.Sander said:
Moreover, there is a difference between stealing a nuclear weapon and actually detonating it. In addition to obstacles posed by the aforementioned kill switches / locks, the arming procedure of a nuclear weapon is extremely complex and requires a group of trained experts working in concert to accomplish successfully - which again places it beyond the ability and technical aptitude of a terrorist group. The best they can hope to accomplish is salvage the weapon's nuclear material and make some kind of a "dirty bomb", which is incomparably less effective than an actual nuke. And even if terrorists somehow acquired the ability to arm a nuclear weapon, they would still need to transport it to a target location, which is more difficult than it sounds. Nuclear weapons tend to be massive, unwieldy things, so you can't just strap them under your jacket and walk to the nearest government building. Plus, they kind of advertise their presence everywhere you go, what with the massive radiation signature and all.
If you're still worried about rogue nuclear weapons, consider this: have the terrorists ever stolen a cruise missile, or a fighter, or even a gunship? In addition to being highly destructive, these items are also far more prolific and accessible than even the oldest and most neglected of nuclear weapons. Yet for pretty much ever terrorist outfit ever, AK-47s and TNT-loaded trucks have been about the extent of their technological capacity to inflict mayhem. Creative and unexpected applications of civilian technology like destroying skyscrapers with airliners is as far as they'll ever go.
Maybe. But still you can get enough Uranium or Plutonium to make a dirty bomb, easier to make, might even be more damaging in the long run.
Oh they care. See, if they don't have people they don't have money or power. So every country would try to use weapons as to maximize the chances that its own people don't get hurt.
When a leader goes crazy, in a dictatorship, he can use nuclear weapons disregarding MAD.
Yeah, but what if a country is so distabilised that its nukes can be easily stolen? Rogue may mean for example a group inside the military. Generals' plot kinda thing.
Terrorists have stolen (or otherwise obtained) plenty of smaller arms. But more importantly, nuclear proliferation has been mostly limited to a few countries. As this technology spreads, and it will and has, the risk of weapons at some point falling into the wrong hands obviously increase.Ratty said:
Add to that, that while the chance of that happening may be low, the cost when it does happen is so large that you should not ignore this.
Crni Vuk said:
While this is true currently, Iran probably feels vulnerable at the knowledge it cannot respond to an attack in the future.
Blakut said:
That makes no sense, MAD is part of the incentive to gain Nuclear capability. Most countries wouldn't want a way out, but a way in.
Sander said:
Yeah, but MAD does not apply to terrorist cells, its refers to nations.
Sander said:
Sander is right, there's plenty of suicide and doomsday cults around, but i agree with Ratty. To steal them is not a easy thing and assuming they get them, they then have to deal with the pursuit force that would come down on them.
That's my point. It's not a closed system, hence it fails.Aphyosis said:
That doesn't mean the risk isn't there, and the costs are extremely high when it does happen.Aphyosis said:
Of course they care for it, in a political way, cause you "need" the population of a country of obviously. But what I mean was a way to care about your citizens, all of them, cause they are humans not cause it makes at the moment the better politics.Blakut said:
But there have been countless scenarios in simulations in the military which involved a lot of civilian casualites for the case you could letz say destroy 60% of the incoming missiles. At some point it might have been "acceptable" regardless if that kind of thoughts are still completely nutz and even if your country might survive somewhat a nuclear attack, the rest of the world would be away and polution might have effects that are yet unkown. Those are hypotethical thoughts of course since no side had exact numbers of the enemies nuclear arsenal and things became even more of an issue with the submarines and land based missiles on trucks/heavy vehicles since those cant be located really before they fire the missile. Despite the danger of nuclear weapons even some politicans wanted them badly for the German military regardless that most people disagreed and that with such missiles in Germany it would have been a greater danger and luckily the resistance in Germany has been to high so the plan to get a nuclear arsenal for West Germany was never achieved. But the thoughts behind it was that Germany should have more co-determination.
Indeed but those "completely" insane groups are quite rare. Insane in the way that even the leadership is so suicidal that it doesnt care about anything.Sander said:
many of the "radical" organisations like the Hamas for example have no interest in a global nuclear warefare or attack to speak so since they know that such a case would also cause casualties to them and have the potential to destroy places that are holy to them as well like Medina, Mekka etc. They are a political orgainsation afterall. Similar counts for the many other prominent terror organisations we know. Their leaders are driven by quite natural human feelings. Power and Money. Those that are really that crazy with a plan to kill everything I think are very rare and as Ratty already explained its not really possible that those will ever get access to a nuclear weapon, leaving alone a ICBM!
Youre watching to much movies. Seriously. If it hasnt happend the last 60 years, why should it suddenly now. Even if a nation is very instabile I doubt it would go unoticed.Blakut said:
There is a illegal market regarding nuclear technology already since a long time. But we have many national and international organisations that keep an eye on it. Whole inteligence services from Europe, Russia the US and other nations that keep an eye on it and follow all traces possible. Is it really imaginable that a "stolen" or "dissapearing" nuclear weapon would not triger a large event and every inteligence service of the western hemisphere searching for it? If you can steal it then youcan also find it.
The market for the ilegal nuclear trade it is mostly about technology and knowledge. That is why so far only nations like Pakistan, India, N-Korea and the Iran try to get acces to it and not some underground insane terrorist organisation. Cause as Ratty already clearly explained there is much much more to it then just simply "we havz the gunz now!". Already during the 70s and 80s certain nations like the Iraq, Iran and Pakistan and some African states walked to France and Russia asking for "nuclear" technologies. Sometimes they got a bit. Most of the time nothing. No one believed the "its for peacefull purposes" even for a second. Pakistan achieved a lot by simply using Pakistani scientists which received a education in the west and there have been a lot of issues around that in the recent past cause some of them worked in European nuclear fascilities. What was the cost for that though? Pakistan is spending a lot on its military just like India while their people have issues to survive.
For eventualy to make a dirty bomb or even a nuclear weapon well to get your hands on Uranium is not a easy thing either its almost as difficult if like stealing a nuke (if not even more). Most of the mines, if not all of them are in the hands of western/russian-asian companies which keep track about everyything they are digging. That of course doesnt mean that we should NOT be on guard regardless if the Iran or some terrorist groups try it or that we should throw all our fear over board. But we should really not get in to irational thoughts and let us fool from politicans that have no desire to explain what is really behind some strategic plans like the rocket shield in Poland right next to the Russians ... sure against Iran or Korea. My ass. If the Russians dont believe that. I dont either. And that has nothing to do with a conspiracy. Its simple "marketing" its easier to sell people a defence against the Iran then against Russia cause everyone would feel remembered to the Cold War.
To say that. I dont have any fear about all those political garbe you can hear in TV and "terrorist groups" they talk about. Why? cause those things happen already since the last 50 years, if not even longer. Coming from Serbia ... I ve seen those kind of propaganda already. Yesterday the bad boys have been the Serbians, cause you needed Yugoslavia as dump to get rid of old weapon systems. Today it are some islamistic terror groups.
The part I really fear about is smaller conflicts between nations that have nuclear weapons, most potentialy a war between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran eventualy. Or Nourth against South Korea, their relation depends very much on how the US is working on its foreign affairs. To see here more nuclear weapons in the hands of smaller nations is meaning a increasing risk to see them used in smaller conflicts and if one would start to use them, you will see all of them do the same. All it needs is one who starts it cause "no one want to be the first".
I am also worried about the recent new research in "smaller" rather tactical then strategical weapons and the increase in ammunition containing Uranium which is still not yet completely researched regarding pollution or long time effects on the enviroment and soldiers! There are reports about negative effects from it in Iraq, Yugoslavia and other parts of the world! Yet there is not enough research and all you hear from NATO forces is that the danger is "not relevant".
Sander said:
Yeah, but its not MEANT To relate to terrorist cells. MAD Refers to the Nuclear relations between two country's. Applying it to a Terrorist cell is like having two men in a car occupying the same road along with a airplane. Its a completely different rule set.
I know. So why are people pretending that MAD is the answer to nuclear proliferation? It's an answer to international global war, to an extent, but not to all risks of nuclear arms.Aphyosis said:
The fact that something has not happened before does not preclude it from happening in the future. And, as I noted, as nuclear proliferation increases, the risk increases.Crni Vuk said:
