US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

[welsh]

Sorry Kharn, but I won't be able to look at the article more carefully until this weekend. But one thing I noticed

Anyone who spends half an hour looking at Iranian foreign policy over the last 27 years sees five things:

1. contempt for the most basic international conventions;
2. long-reach extraterritoriality;
3.effective promotion of radical Pan-Islamism;
4. a willingness to go the extra mile for Jew-killing (unlike, say, Osama);
5. an all-but-total synchronization between rhetoric and action.

These were common arguments made against the Russians.

If you read Kennan's memoirs or Kissinger's papers, they both agree that the Soviets would-
(1) show contempt for international conventions (see also N.Korea for the same thing)
(2) A commitment to a Marxist ideology that transcended national borders
(3) participation in a global project
(4) willingness to use extreme measures
(5) the big question being whether they were ideological or rational.

This last one really divided the academic world. Most favored the rational actor model, and those who said, "Those guys are really ideological" were often sacked. That is until John L Gaddis took another look and said, "Hey this ideological stuff really did matter" but that's been largely ignored since.

I think the problem in Iran is related to that of Iraq. If the US pulls out of Iraq, and the US will pull out of Iraq- the momentum is already there (and so Pale Horse may never really get the chance to help out the Iraqis afterall). Joe Biden said as much last week on Bill Mahr (remarkable how much is disclosed on that show).

If the US leaves Iraq unfinished, it's a civil war. And if its a civil war it will spill over. Will Iran try to seize a slice of Iraq? How will that affect Saudi Arabia? How will Israel react? Lots of ugly questions and certainly more violence will occur until someone does what Syria did in Lebanon- intervene and strong arm everyone into submission.

And now Iran has the bomb?

But the article is right that the US and Europe have been too soft on Iran, too permissive, perhaps not to alarm the Muslim community within Europe. The US doesn't have the same demographic problem so we can get tough.

Interestingly this is also true of US positions during the Cold War. A very soft tone vis-a-vis powerful Soviet rhetoric.

Would Iran actually use the bomb? I don't think they want to. Countries build atomic bombs partially for insurance (to deter attack) but also for nationalism.

Examples-
-South Africa tried to go nuclear for strategic reasons, but what the hell could a nuclear bomb do against the ANC and regional conflicts? -

-Argentina and Brazil had programs of WMD, but gave them up. Those were nationalistic and technological projects which basically said to the world- we don't need the americans, and we are willing to say "fuck you America"- sounds like Iran. Both countries gave up their projects.

-Libya gave up its WMD project which signified Libya's opposition to the US, because it was too expensive to sustain it and it wanted to sell oil again.

-North Korea develops its bomb with an excuse of deterring American aggression but really to show the world it also has a big dick and we need to pay attention to it.

-India detonated a bomb for nationalistic reasons- it gave the BJP a popular boost when it needed it.

-Pakistan tested its bomb to show India and its people that it too has a big dick.

So countries get nuclear bombs in part to assert their power and to gain respect and nationalist support. In otherwords to show off that they too have a big dick.

But those projects are really expensive and most can't sustain a real nuclear profile.

A nuclear strategy requires a secured second strike capacity. In fact without the secured second strike capacity, nuclear weapons become a liability.

Having a nuke means you can devestate your enemy while deterring counter attack. But If their enemy can destroy that capacity on its first launch than they win.

So having the bomb is actually worse than not having it. By having the bomb , they encourage their enemy to hit first and hit hard.

Example in conventional terms- Israel's six day war in '67. Perhaps also World War 1 with the race to mobilize.

This goes back to offense-defense bias.
Second Strike capacity means that "no matter how badly you hurt us, we will still destroy you."= defense.

But having only a few nukes means that you have an offensive power that is short lived. A few nukes is offensive biased.

The way you destroy offensive bias is by destroying it first- thus creating a race towards preemptive first strike- W's current nuclear policy.

Therefore Iran is playing into the US hands.
(Note- North Korea is a bit better at this because their infrastructure relies on a maze of underground caverns where they could hide their bombs. This is kind of like China's policy of having a few nukes but moving them around so you can't hit them in the first strike).

Ok, so back to the point-
Iran is playing to the US in typical rogue state matter. It wants to show the world it has a big dick and needs to be taken into consideration- much like North Korea has done.

If it uses its weapons to promote a mass islamic project, it will be wiped off the face of the world. It knows that.

The problem for Iran goes back to nuclear war calculation I mentioned earlier - the probability that the other side will really go the way.

Nuclear War is much like Terrorism- a test of character and will, and a lot of folks think the Iranians might (has the will to) do it. Or those countries won't take the chance that Iran might- See Israel.

Israel attacked Iraq's nuclear reactor back in the 1980s on this same rationale. Iraq might not use the bomb, but can Israel cannot ake the risk.

As for me, I think actually getting into a war of civilization is a dangerous thing. No the US should not take shit from Iran. Those fuckers are a pain in the ass. But at the same time, if you could overthrow the regime from inside, than you could probably get the Iranians to end their nuclear project.

The reason- nuclear projects are expensive- economically to keep, economically in terms of the bad rep it gets you and expensive diplomatically.

That said, watching Lou Dobbs tonight, the question was why have 6 generals together called for Rumsfeld to resign and the better question- why now?
Why now- Probably the Iran policy. This could be seen as a military rejection to the administration's plans by striked at the Sec of Def. Short of that would be going against the President, and that would be mutiny if these generals were active duty.

Thus the question asked earlier-
Is the Administration ass fucking the military-
Six generals say yes.

Note- why wouldn't the generals support such a policy? Because by reintroducing nukes into international politics by actually using them you set a very bad signal to the rest of the world.

 

[SuAside]

a nuclear arsenal is always defensive as well as offensive Welsh, no matter how few you have. the enemy can think he can destroy it on first strike, but can he truly be 100% sure that you dont have another one, stashed somewhere, ready for kicking the agressor straight in the nuts? if you have one, you can have two. if you have two, you can have three...

he can never be certain. which is a detterent and makes it defensive, no matter the number.

 

[welsh]

a nuclear arsenal is always defensive as well as offensive Welsh, no matter how few you have. the enemy can think he can destroy it on first strike, but can he truly be 100% sure that you dont have another one, stashed somewhere, ready for kicking the agressor straight in the nuts? if you have one, you can have two. if you have two, you can have three...

Suaside, you are missing the point and I think you are suggesting the origins of an arms race. The question is not whether you can use a nuke defensively (say to deter) or offensively (for instance to coerce) but rather how the inclusion of nuclear weapons affects you general strategic posture. It is not a matter of the different types of utility of weapons. IN that sense you are correct, an offensive weapon can often be used defensively- IE you can use a tank either to blitzkrieg or from interdiction, flexible or static defense.

However, having tanks also allows you to have a certain posture that you wouldn't have otherwise, a greater ability to launch an offensive strike than merely defend. Thus the German development of armored warfare allowed them to become offensively capable and make remarkable achievements in combined arms offensive movement at the origin of World War 2, even if the German use of tanks evolved for more defensive war fighting- with the development of tank destroyers and more heavily armored slow moving tanks.

One can make a similar argument for fighter aircraft. Even the Egyptians use SAMs offensively in the Yom Kippur War even though most people would think of SAMS as basically a defensive weapoin.

Don't get me wrong- Personally I am not too keen on this distinction between "offense" or "defense" orientated weapon systems as they are interchangeable. Frances Maginot Line was envisioned as a strategic move to enable French troops to more quickly mobilize and deploy against German, a jump off into the German heartland- thus an offensive posture. Today we think of the Maginot Line as a defensive line- such are interpretations.

What I am arguing is this.
If you have one nuclear bomb, you can use it defensively or offensively. Offensively- you can land a decisive attack or coerce an enemy to do what you want. Example North Korea uses its nuclear forces to demand concessions.

But on its face, if country A has a nuclear weapon it is a dangerous liability to the neighbors. The structural change to the regional military balance, provides an incentive to the enemy, Country B, to shoot first. SImply it cannot risk a first strike by COuntry A, so it must shoot preemptively. Likewise, because Country A knows that the weapon is vulnerable as long as its not being used, there is a "use it or lose it" mentality. Fire the missile or drop the bomb before the other side destroys it.

That leads to an offensive posture. Each side is encouraged to make first use. If one side believes the other is likely to attack (and it doesn't matter which side believes it) than the other must attack first or it will lose.

In contrast a secured second strike means that the enemy has no chance of taking out your strategic weapons, and if he does try it, than he is certain to get wiped out. If both countries A and B both have a secured second strike than you've got MAD- which is defensive orientated as hell. Both sides are deterred from going all the way for risk of absolute destruction to each. The balance of terror is achieved.

Let me illustrate- the nuclear triad is based on three parts-
ICBMs- in hardened or weak silos- you shoot them and you can't get them back. Because everyone knows where they are, they are vulnerable to a first strike. If Country A launches against Country B, Country B has to decide whether to fire his missile before they are destroyed or not. ICBMS are inherently offensive. Add to them precise guidance systems- so that there is a good likelihood of destroying the enemy missiles on the ground- than ICBMs are very offensive based.

Bombers- vulnerable on the ground (so you always keep a few in the air), slow moving, fairly precise weapons. The nice thing about bombers is you can recall them (well up to a point- see Fail Safe). Bombers could be used offensively, but generally they are more a diplomatic weapon. You can step up pressure on your enemy by sending the bombers up, but then recalling them before you get into the enemy air space.

SLBMs- Sub Launched Ballistic Missiles- generally are a defensive weapon. Why- historically the guidance wasn't very good so they were primarily aimed at cities, not other military targets. They also are diffficult to destroy as they hide in the ocean.

Note the different nuclear postures of the US and USSR- the USSR favored ICBMs and then submarines. ICBMS were generally offensive.

The US favored bombers and submarines- generally a defensive agenda with the intention of saying to the Soviets- if you launch we'll fuck you up good. Furthermore the US didn't develop civil defense and therefore sent a message that it relies on deterrence.
The Russians did build a system suggesting that they weren't going to rely on deterrence.

But the US could deter and had committed itself to that strategy since Truman. The idea was simple- we wait out the Russians until the bankrupt themselves.

(Could the same thing work on the Iranians? )

Reagan of course screwed all that up with his projects, but that's another post.

he can never be certain. which is a detterent and makes it defensive, no matter the number.

Not quite- this comes down to questions of probabilities. Does country B have a high chance of destroying Country's A's ability to launch an attack vs. the likelihood that in the future that probability will decline and the likelihood of attack from country A will increase.

Cuban Missile Crisis- the Air Force couldn't guarantee 100% strike on Cuba and thus the risk of Cuban retaliation plus war in Russia. Had the Airforce said, yes we can do 100% certainty- than we might have launched against Cuba (and started World War 3).

Think of it another way- do we take the chance now, even if there is a risk, or wait till later and take a more risky chance with greater possibility of damage. It's a measure of risk and loss. Less risk and less now, vs more risk and more loss later.

Arms racing- your point earlier- the more you got the more likely you get a second strike in, and the harder it is for your enemy will to have assurance that they can destroy your strategic weapons on the ground. There are just too many.

But the problem for poor countries is that arms racing is expensive. So look at India and Pakistan- both want to show that they have big nuclear dicks, but neither are willing to invest in expanding their size. It's too expensive and too dangerous. Thus the need to reconcile and find peaceful solutions. Neither Iran nor North Korea can probably afford a large nuclear program so there is good reason for them to peacefully de-nuke, even if that requres regime change. Note that even the former Soviet republics got rid of their missiles or gave them up because those systems were too expensive to keep and there were little real returns from having them.

 

[SuAside]

yeah, well, those countries weren't being depicted as an axis of ev0l!!!1!!one!!

a country knowing the US is its natural enemy really has no reason not to try to develop nukes/biological/chemical weapons atm. it's a sign at the border: interfere & burn, infidels.

how often has W taken concrete action against North Korea since the whole nuclear debacle? sure he mentions em in his speeches, but what else? not much. (the obvious reason being not only the nuke, but rather the fact that NK has nothing that could interest the US. or even further, as long as the regime is in place, NK poses no economical threat of cheap labour to the US.) however, it sends mixed signals, easily misinterpreted.

Iran sees the terrible grip the US has on the world, sees they've got their hands full with other conflicts and acts now, in the hope of being 'ready' by the time the US can send troops. hoping to have a real deterrent ready by then. i dont think anyone in Iran actually believes there will be a nuclear strike and even if there is, it's to their own advantage...

a nuclear strike would breathe life into terrorist organisations for a century to come. afterall, you attack them on souvereign soil, with the same weapons the US is trying to keep the country from developing. who's the terrorist here? why do you think you've got the right to decide who gets to be nuclear & who doesnt?
the populace would largely fall in line with the current governement in the defense of their country. other semi-independent countries will burn the diplomatic ties they have to the US. countries that once would have nothing to do with eachother would unite in defense-pacts. the US would be a loose canon, a liability, the one real Rogue state.

just as the Soviets in the cold war, the US will eat itself up by launching an offensive nuclear strike. it might take a while, but it'll set in motion events on an unprecedented scale.

 

[welsh]

I think the difference between North Korea and Iran is a matter of containment.

Geographically North Korea is contained by China to the North and South Korea to the south. It has launched operations abroad (assassination in Burma comes to mind) but generally speaking it's been stuck on the peninsula. If it werent' for the nuclear option, I don't think anyone would really care about North Korea at all.

As for Iran. One of the reasons why the Gulf Cooperation Council exists is because of Iran. The US support for the military development of Saudi Arabia was partially because of Iraq but also Iran (and weapon sales is good business). But Iran has its nose in Afghanistan, it probably messes with the countries to its immediate north. It want's to be a local power player and because it might do so over the world's oil deposits, makes it contrary to US interest.

I think you're right in the sense that if the US were to use the nuclear option it would send a dangerous signal. Jeffrey Legro's COoperation under Fire, points out that there are some methods of war that the military will simply not take to. For instance, combatants might accept submarine warfare, but wil be more willing to do so if its against merchant ships. They will bomb civilian cities- if its in reprisal. But even the Germans, at the end of World War 2, would not use poison gases.

Ditto nuclear weapons. Some weapons are just too abhorent to use. To use them would be not only to castigate oneself with what many would consider a crime, but would also begin a normalization process of that type of warfare (more nuclear wars in the future) or perhaps even a demobilization of that type of warfare (the ending of nuclear weapons as a diplomatic tool).

IF the military goes along with a nuclear strike against Iran it therefore risks being charged as accomplice in a war crime against the Iranians. The use of nuclear warfare, with its widespread impact on society, would probably be considered by most as a crime of war and a crime against humanity. You cannot use the "I was ordered to do so by my government" excuse because that went out with the Nazis.

If nuclear weapons were to become normalized in use, than the other countries would be less reluctant to use those weapons against US of their neighbors. For the past 50 years nuclear weapons have allowed a relative stability to emerge under a balance of terror. For one to actually utilize those weapons, would be engage the terrror- destabilizing much of the peace that has been so carefully created.

But if the world community were to uniformly begin a process of de-nuking, than (1) If the US refused- as it probably would, it would be against castigated as a something of a barbaric rogue, undermining its credibility.
(2) It would also create a new security problem- as one wouldn't know which countries have hung on to their nuclear arsenals in secret while accepting the rhetoric of removing their nuclear arms.

 

[S]

nuclear weapons... why... why would anyone want to launch one.
Its a very sick solution to whatever the problem because of various reasons. Don't people care about their own well being, launching a nuke no doubt solve problems, but in the long term it will do you much more harm
problems such as an increase to an already high background radiation would mean killing both yourself and enemy (sometimes more than if you just fight a war like WW2 or something - no nukes) .
In addition to that, smaller damaging aspects such as a place in the history books for mass killing isn't very nice or is it.

If you ask me i would remove all nukes forever. - don't use weapons with powers that go beyond your control.

 

[PhredBean]

If you ask me i would remove all nukes forever. - don't use weapons with powers that go beyond your control.

How cute, and how would you propose that one?

But the US could deter and had committed itself to that strategy since Truman. The idea was simple- we wait out the Russians until the bankrupt themselves.
(Could the same thing work on the Iranians? )

Simply, no. The only way to force an Iranian bankrupcy would be to force sanctions against their oil sales, something China (part of the UNs "security council" with massive veto powers) would NEVER allow as they are trying to gather up all the oil supplies they can to strengthen the growth of their country. They have already invested millions in Iranian oil, to include a massive pipeline leading straight to Chinese refineries.

 

[[Rusty Chopper]]

nuclear weapons... why... why would anyone want to launch one.

If you ask me i would remove all nukes forever. - don't use weapons with powers that go beyond your control.

It's clear now that you are not a Fallout fan.

 

[Celluloid]

Very interesting thread ...

I'd like to add to welsh' saying that W deciding to go nuclear on Iran could also be made easy by Iran itself, well at least its radical president.

A country reluctant to stop all nuclear activities because they want to have access to civil nuclear power is a thing.
It says "hey f***, we know we're sitting on massive oil fields, but we're not dumb, we also want to secure the future".

But when the same country :
+ having for years developed long range missiles technology ("officially" known are Shahab 3 missiles, half a ton warhead, 1500+ km range - built on the basis of the N.Korean "No Dong" missile, what next ?)
+ suspected of looking forward to produce military quality uranium and plutonium
has a president who reinstate - Khomeini first said it - that Iran policy is to make sure Israel is "wiped off the map" is a serious different case .

It's like someone saying "I'm gonna blast your head off" while handling an empty shotgun, and then returning to its home : does he have ammo inside this house ? Can he make some ?
Do I really want to wait here on the street and see what happens ?

Of course, that's provocation from Ahmadinejad, but either the guy is seriously mad, or is seriously clever, or both ...
" Let's toy the US or Israel into pre-emptive bombing our country or at least our nuclear installations (hello Osirak), let them bring us martyrdom on a silver plate so we can call for a worldwide Jihad... "

He knows it's the right time to piss off the US, while they have two feet in Iraq hand in Afghanistan and they wave the other hand in order to keep balance...
He knows it's the right time to piss off Israel, while they have Hamas at the head of the palestinian government.

 

[SuAside]

Celluloid, who gave W the right to decide who gets nukes & who doesn't? you have em, but no one else can? shit... you pretty much handed Israel the technology with french help. remember the treaties? dont help other countries get nukes. simple. yet you broke it.

now a country tries to make em (more or less on their own) & you want to nuke em for it?

hah, moronic shit...

besides, do you really believe Iran will nuke Israel? the towelheads aren't that stupid... Iran would glow at night for centuries to come if they did that & they know it.

 

[Elissar]

besides, do you really believe Iran will nuke Israel?

Yes, they have stated for years that they would love nothing more than to wipe Isreal off the map.

the towelheads aren't that stupid... Iran would glow at night for centuries to come if they did that & they know it.

Have you ever heard of the term martyr? The "towelheads" as you call them, seem all too willing to be martyrs lately.

 

[welsh]

S- Funny how that was also the position of the Soviet Union in the early days of the Cold War when it had the conventional advantage.

PhredBean- Economic sanctions against Iran wouldn't work as long as it can pump out oil and blame the rest of the world for all its problems. That's the problem with a containment strategy. Still, I think a regime change would be better than a nuclear strike.

Rusty- do you have anything meaningful to add?


Celluloid- Iran's policy is more domestically targetted than externally. This is diplomacy by distraction, and a move to gain nationalistic support. Don't discount this. The Argentinians did the same thing vis-a-vis Britian (which the Brits ignored) and started the Falkland Islands War. Had the Argentines waited a year, the Brits would have been less capable of power projection as Thatcher was cutting back defense spending. But they were afraid that unless they played a "get tough" with Britian policy, they would be deposed domestically. Their game was a diplomatic victory by pushing the Brits, but the Brits failed to take them seriously.

But I actually think that a government that goes with the "peaceful development of nuclear technology," while sitting atop of one of the world's largest oil fields, might be a bit deceptive here. There are better forms of energy than nuclear power.

SuAside- It is an unfair world that some countries have nukes an others don't. And while the US might have had a hand with France in giving the Israelis nuclear technology, it has allowed the Israeli state to survive.

The question is what do the nuclear weapons do for changing the balance of power in the region, and is it destabilizing. Iran is a hegemonically orientated power- has been for a long time.

And while I doubt the Iranians would actually use the bomb, the question is how much of a chance are you willing to take on this. They have threatened to use it before, and the regime could become very unstable. Iran chooses to be bellicose- So for points discussed above- this plays to W's hands if he wants to initiate a war.

At Elly- Perhaps they might, but I doubt it, especially when chances are the Iranians would be wiped out in the mess. Still there are leaders who were able and willing to send their people into mass suicide.

 

[Celluloid]

Celluloid, who gave W the right to decide who gets nukes & who doesn't? you have em, but no one else can? shit...

Well it's not some damn candy some guy doesn't want to share ...
I don't mind if every country on this world get access to civil nuclear power, but we're talking about bombs, here ...
Don't take offense, but in what kind of fantasy world are you living in ?
To this day, hasn't fanatism already showed up to where it could go ?
Don't the Darwin Awards remember us that utter stupidity is part of the human gene pool ?

Do you seriously think that if any country on this world have nukes we would have a sort of statu quo ?
I say we could achieve quite the same *without* the risk that a psycho somewhere "just slipped on the red thingy, my bad, sorry folks ! I thought I had pushed the 'national day fireworks' button ...".
You obviously like to live dangerously or you have balls the size of the sun
Maybe you got nerves of steel by learning how to juggle with pure trinitroglycerin filled glass bottles ...

you pretty much handed Israel the technology with french help. remember the treaties? dont help other countries get nukes. simple. yet you broke it.

Well actually, the official "unofficial" history is that it's solely the French would gave the core elements of nuclear research to Israel.
The US only officially "discovered" the advancement of Israel nuclear abilities in the late 60s. ( They might have "put intel reports under the carpet" for a certain time )
As Israel never performed any nuclear bomb test, they don't officially have nukes ( whereas presumed number of warheads amounts to 100 to 200 ).
But what was the context in the late 50s to the late 70s for Israel ?
I wouldn't say that they had peaceful and friendly neighbors...

now a country tries to make em (more or less on their own) & you want to nuke em for it?

Well, first, the only guy who mentioned that going nuclear was a last-term option was George W Bush, not me, and I don't see where in my post I expressed the fact I was supportive of the idea ...

besides, do you really believe Iran will nuke Israel? the towelheads aren't that stupid... Iran would glow at night for centuries to come if they did that & they know it.

Well, again :
1) I would prefer not having to worry about it, so I would prefer not having to play with fire by letting them, at this stage - considering who's in charge in that country right now, and what are their views towards Israel -, having a nuke, period
2) with fanatics preaching martyrdom, it's really not only a problem of intelligence vs stupidity ...

welsh> well, I agree with the whole "This is diplomacy by distraction, and a move to gain nationalistic support. Don't discount this."
I do know that the call to "wipe Israel off the map" was not made in an official announcement of Iranian diplomacy, but by the president in a sort of youth congress.
But it lets you think about the guy : doesn't he realize its country is under the spotlights ?
Or does he fully realize it, and in this case, so what ?[/i]

 

[PhredBean]

PhredBean- Economic sanctions against Iran wouldn't work as long as it can pump out oil and blame the rest of the world for all its problems. That's the problem with a containment strategy. Still, I think a regime change would be better than a nuclear strike.

That's what I said, there's no way to stop them from pumping oil out. Their primary partner in oil trade is China, which is in a perfect position as part of the UN Security Council to destroy any motion for international sanctions, and I can't see it supporting the US's position against Iran with Iran holding so much of the oil China is counting on to more fully modernize and expand it's economy.

Though how would you suggest facilitating a regime change? Assassination and Intelligence-staged-coups have had a hand in bringing the region to the instability it's experiencing now. There are plenty of rebel groups itching to take Iran's government out, but supporting them would be a HUGE mistake for countless reasons. Full-scale military intervention is out of the question, the US too overextended to bring any sort of sufficient force to bear on it and no other countrywould even consitter taking part in it. Not to mention an invasion of another Arabic state by a western country would bring the region to an even greater boil. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sworn to destroy western culture, and couldn't be counted on to engage in any formal talks without just using them as the North Koreans are - as a stalling tactic and as a forum for its tantrums. Waiting it out would also just give this problem more time to escalate.

A strategic strike using conventional weaponry or special forces to neutralize Iran's research facilities might be the best option, though only a temporary solution since as long as the nations regime remains the same, there will be more support of terrorist organizations and more attempts at a full nuclear program.

 

[SuAside]

besides, do you really believe Iran will nuke Israel?

Yes, they have stated for years that they would love nothing more than to wipe Isreal off the map.

and you'll think they'll simply launch nukes? they couldve blanketed Israel with chemical & biological shizzle a long time ago, if they felt like it.

the towelheads aren't that stupid... Iran would glow at night for centuries to come if they did that & they know it.

Have you ever heard of the term martyr? The "towelheads" as you call them, seem all too willing to be martyrs lately.

there is a difference between having some shit for brains blow himself up in a shoppingmall & launching a nuclear strike on a neighbouring country...

some individual guy thats been treated badly all his life might, but why the fuck would the people in power want to give away all their perks to get nuked themself?

what do people in power want? swing their dick, conquer some shit if they can, but mostly keep themself in place. you cant run a country with a half dozen of nukes stuck in your rectum...

Celluloid, who gave W the right to decide who gets nukes & who doesn't? you have em, but no one else can? shit...

Well it's not some damn candy some guy doesn't want to share ...
I don't mind if every country on this world get access to civil nuclear power, but we're talking about bombs, here ...
Don't take offense, but in what kind of fantasy world are you living in ?
To this day, hasn't fanatism already showed up to where it could go ?
Don't the Darwin Awards remember us that utter stupidity is part of the human gene pool ?

Do you seriously think that if any country on this world have nukes we would have a sort of statu quo ?
I say we could achieve quite the same *without* the risk that a psycho somewhere "just slipped on the red thingy, my bad, sorry folks ! I thought I had pushed the 'national day fireworks' button ...".
You obviously like to live dangerously or you have balls the size of the sun
Maybe you got nerves of steel by learning how to juggle with pure trinitroglycerin filled glass bottles ...

it's not candy, it's inequality.

Iran dislikes western powers. a big part in that is the current inequality.

now some stupidass gung-ho redneck nation (that helped inplant a bunch of jews on moslim holy ground) not only invades several arab countries, but goes on to say how the countries should be run and that you cant research nukes or you'll get nuked?

fuck, if i were an iranian, i'd build fucking nukes.

how long do you think you can keep nuclear power from spreading? we've come to an age that if you can develop ballistic missiles, you can pretty much build nukes as well. you just need the materials.

the thing is, nukes are expensive & dangerous. hence most countries dont want em. for Iran however, the power of propaganda & threat waaaaaaaay outweighs the price.

now a country tries to make em (more or less on their own) & you want to nuke em for it?

Well, first, the only guy who mentioned that going nuclear was a last-term option was George W Bush, not me, and I don't see where in my post I expressed the fact I was supportive of the idea ...

dont take everything i write personally, nor mistake what i write for my own thoughts

besides, do you really believe Iran will nuke Israel? the towelheads aren't that stupid... Iran would glow at night for centuries to come if they did that & they know it.

Well, again :
1) I would prefer not having to worry about it, so I would prefer not having to play with fire by letting them, at this stage - considering who's in charge in that country right now, and what are their views towards Israel -, having a nuke, period
2) with fanatics preaching martyrdom, it's really not only a problem of intelligence vs stupidity ...

1) how long do you think you can keep it from happening? you can threathen, but if you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to prove it from time to time. people tend to forget.

if bushy had threathened to blow the shit out of the facility with conventional weapons, yes i'd believe him. he however threathened with nukes... fuck nukes, if you're stupid enough to actually use em in this case, you'll reap the consequences...

2) martyrdom is nice imo. i wish i were that stupid.

however, as i said, you can preach martyrdom to a disgruntled and misguided man.
you can talk a whole battalion into martyrdom to protect their country and family.
but you cannot talk an entire country into martyrdom...

welsh> well, I agree with the whole "This is diplomacy by distraction, and a move to gain nationalistic support. Don't discount this."
I do know that the call to "wipe Israel off the map" was not made in an official announcement of Iranian diplomacy, but by the president in a sort of youth congress.
But it lets you think about the guy : doesn't he realize its country is under the spotlights ?
Or does he fully realize it, and in this case, so what ?

he knows all too well & he's loving it

 

[John Uskglass]

Have you ever heard of the term martyr?

Muslim 'Martyr's have more in common with our 'murderers' then with Christian martyrs. Remember that.


Nothing can be done in Iran to preven them from getting Nukes.

 

[welsh]

Add to these considerations that if the US withdraws from Iraq without establishing a constitutional order, you will be seeing a Shia government with Iranian influence, in Iraq.

 

[Roshambo]

OFFTOPIC, yet still kinda relevant:

Rumsfeld gets felt up again by another retired General looking for an easy date.

 

[S]

]

nuclear weapons... why... why would anyone want to launch one.

If you ask me i would remove all nukes forever. - don't use weapons with powers that go beyond your control.

It's clear now that you are not a Fallout fan.

No, i am ... A real nuclear fallout isn't anything like to the game. chances are that you'll die before you even see any mutations. no doubt it'll be cool to live in a post apocaliptic era, that is if you even survive the first blast and still ... you'll have to survive the blackout caused by nuclear dust etc.. and the most important is to get a way to become immune to radiation..... yes then it'll be fun
but the chances are that you'll be dead and you won't even know what hit you.

And to answer the question of how i am to propose No nuke policy, well... simple build a much more powerful weapon than nukes and the chances are they'll stop using nukes and go for what ever the weapon may be

 

[Paladin Solo]

And to answer the question of how i am to propose No nuke policy, well... simple build a much more powerful weapon than nukes and the chances are they'll stop using nukes and go for what ever the weapon may be

Anti-matter weapons, anyone?