#1 Iran: “We are not building a nuclear capability” #2 West: “We will stop you building a nuclear capability” #3 Iran builds a nuclear capability.
Now tell remind me again of which one you think has lost credibility? :rolleyes:
You need to think outside your US-centric paradigm. Yes, they might even be on the recieving end of near-unanimous diplomatic statements of concern regarding nuclear proliferation. Oh dear, how sad, never mind. But earning near-unanimous grudging respect might be closer to the mark.
Whatever the context of the “wipe off the map” of Israel comments anyone chooses to believe, they are in fact a sponsor of terrorism, which is, uh…bad. Particularly when nuclear weapons are involved, which could potentially be given to a proxy and used against, say…Israel, which would free the Iranian regime of culpability, of course.
That silliness again. That would never happen; nations just don’t do that sort of thing. Partly because they know that no one would care if it could be proved if they were responsible or not; plausible deniability wouldn’t cut it. If Iran has nukes and a terrorist group nukes Israel, then their guilt will be assumed and Tehran fries regardless of any proof of guilt on the Iranian’s part. And partly because they wouldn’t trust terrorists with something like that; no one does. Neither the USSR nor the US handed out nukes to their pet thugs either, for the same reasons.
I don’t know what happened to my original post, but it’s gone. I’ll just sum up briefly…
Iran is going to be a nuclear power whether we like it or not. And so what? India and Pakistan HATE each other, and they haven’t lobbed nukes at each other.
Iran getting nuclear technology is not going to change anything in the Middle East. They aren’t shooting nukes at Israel. If they did, what would happen?
Exactly.
If nothing would change, why do you suppose Iran would bother trying to get the things? It’s not so much that they would use them if they had them, as that it changes the balance of powers equation in the region, gives Iran an enormous regional influence that they don’t currently have, and it further opens the door to other NPT members to simply say ‘what the fuck…we’ve gotten all the goodies now for playing along, and since Iran can thumb their nose at the treaty why shouldn’t we?’. It sets a bad precedence.
And, of course, pointing at Pakistan and India having them doesn’t exactly fill ME with comfort, especially Pakistan, and especially in light of their confrontation with the Taliban. As unstable as Iran seemingly is, I’d think more people would be at least nominally concerned with them having nukes. I mean, even if we assume that THIS regime wouldn’t be mad enough to use the things (and that’s still an assumption), what about the successor governments that might follow on if the current one falls? Or, what about THIS government, having been deposed or on the brink of being deposed…what might THEY do if they have a nuke and they seem things starting to seriously go tits up? And this all leaves aside the fact that, like North Korea, nuclear weapons will essentially make Iran untouchable and beyond reach, regardless of what they do. This may fill Der Trihs with satisfaction, but personally an Iran who feels they have a free hand to do what they like in the region, plus has the added prestige and regional face that nukes would give them doesn’t exactly give ME warm fuzzies.
It will probably happen anyway, as I don’t think that NATO, the Euro’s or the US is willing to go to the mat with them over this issue. But people are kidding themselves if they think this is a good thing, or that it will be business as usual. Maybe we’ll dodge a bullet here…but one of these times a future unstable nation who looks on the example of Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc and decides to thumb their nose at the treaty is going to get nukes and lose control of them…or use them.
I don’t know about that. Pakistan got nukes because India had them. Who will be next after Iran? Saudi Arabia? Escalating nukes in the M.E. isn’t going to be fun, but there ain’t a whole lot we can do to stop it.
Egypt’s a more likely candidate. They have a large foundation of nuclear energy programs to base a weapons program on.
I’m also betting the Republic of Korea has been exploring the idea. They were in the early stages of starting a nuclear weapon development program back in the late fifties as part of their defensive strategy against North Korea. They shut it down under the non-proliferation treaty but with the North having nuclear weapons, they may be reconsidering and seeking parity.
After that, who knows? Brazil, Taiwan, Syria, Argentina, Vietnam, Libya, Burma, Romania.
They are going to get nuclear power. They are going to get a nuclear bomb. Who exactly is going to look discredited? Iran or the US?
Are you under the impression that we are going to go to war with Iran to stop their nuclear program? If that was going to happen, Bush/Cheney would have done it. I don’t see Obama making the right turn from Iraq. Are you willing to lose your son or daughter to a cause that is unstoppable? It’s going to happen. It’s only a matter of time.
I don’t see Iran as unstable as you do. They have problems, no doubt, and a lot of them are a direct result of sanctions placed on them by the west. If they get a nuke, they will still be hamstrung by sanctions.
Pakistan is no bowl of economic or political stability and they haven’t dropped a bomb on India. Why not?
I think the reality is that a nuclear holocaust is the real result of a dropped bomb. If Iran were dumb enough to drop one, how long do you think Iran would remain a viable place to live?
Pakistan drops one on India, it’s good bye Pakistan. It’s that simple. It’s ugly, but the system of checks and balances with nukes has been in place since the Russians caught up to the US.
We need to look beyond the cold war politics and try to see how a nuclear Iran would fit into the ME. If they can afford the bomb, how can we deny them?
Look, I’m not excited about the idea of Nukes in the ME, but it’s going to happen. I don’t see how to stop it, unless a full scale military action invades Iran and destroys any part of their program. And all that would do is delay it.
Well…you are quoting me, but I don’t see how it relates to what I wrote, to be honest.
I suppose that the US/EU are going to be fairly discredited if Iran gets nuclear weapons (as for power, I don’t think that’s really an issue), since we are going to be shown to be unable to enforce the NPT. I’d say that Iran, already being discredited, will, well, stay that way. The fear factor is going to go up quite a bit though.
This is the first of many head scratching ‘huh?’ moments. Where did I say or imply we were going to go to war with Iran over this?
If you don’t then all I can say is you haven’t been paying attention. While I don’t think they are on the brink, I’d have to say that violent regime change is not exactly a low probability possibility at this point.
Um…because they haven’t been in a full scale war with each other? Again, this is another head scratching ‘huh?’ moment here. What I was saying was that the current Pakistan government might lose control of said government, possibly to a group like their own home grown Taliban movement. While this isn’t a high probability event, it COULD happen…and if it did, this would be characterized as a Bad Thing™. Whether or not Pakistan decides to nuke India, or vice versa is a totally separate issue which I wasn’t remotely discussing in my post.
Um…well, I don’t know. I don’t know how much that has to do with what I was saying, either. I’d say that regardless, this doesn’t exactly preclude Iran from doing something stupid, while pointing out that it wasn’t really what I was getting at in my post. Which you were quoting.
I guess since you keep bringing this up I should deal with it in THIS post. Ok. So, you posit that if Pakistan goes nuclear that this would mean that Pakistan could kiss it’s collective ass goodbye. Fair enough. But what if they are in an all out war with India (which they presumably would be in, if they were going to pop a nuke) and they start to lose? Or what if they are in an all out war with India and they go all Russia 1917’ish, and a group like the Taliban take control? Or if the Pakistani government looks to be going down, and it fragments, with some general or other gaining control of the nuclear arsenal? Do you see that these could all happen…and that all of them would be really REALLY not good? There isn’t much we can do about it at this point, obviously, since they have the damn things…nothing except hope that none of this bad shit actually happens.
Which, to sort of get back to the point, is exactly what we are going to have to do if Iran gets the evil things too. And, of course, continue to hope that the next country that gets a wild hair up their ass and decides to develop them (since Iran got away with it and all)…and the next…and the next. That was kind of the point of the NPT in the first place.
This has nothing to do with cold war politics. How could we deny them? Easily. They DID sign the NPT after all. We COULD prevent them from getting the things if we were willing to resort to force. Air strikes on their nuclear facilities spring to mind as one possible solution. There are a whole spectrum of options available to us, ranging from tougher diplomacy to active military operations if they continue to defy what is, essentially, world opinion.
We (by which you seem to mean the US, and I mean the western powers, btw), however, probably won’t do that (though Israel might, since it’s in their best interest to NOT have a nuclear armed Iran). Because we won’t resort to force to prevent it, however, doesn’t detract from the fact that Iran getting the things won’t be a major destabilizing effect in the region. What it will mean is that all of the other countries who are afraid of Iran (and the list is long) will be under pressure to try and fix that imbalance, which could very likely cause a local arms race. It will certainly ratchet up tensions in the region. And it will allow Iran a bit more latitude in pursuing it’s own foreign policies, since essentially it will be immune from any direct type of reprisal from anyone. Pretty much what North Korea gets, but in a region that has vital strategic resources to not just the US but the entire world.
It’s probably going to happen, unless Iran falls apart before they are able to cobble something together (which isn’t beyond the realm of possibility). I’m merely pointing out that I think a lot of people are vastly under-rating the ramifications of Iran getting nukes.
Because it would prevent a “change” like, say, us conquering them and executing the leaders. Because we have demonstrated that the possession of nuclear weapons is the best, most effective means of getting America to deal with you on a level besides brute force. The possession of nukes would allow them to maintain their national sovereignty, their survival as a nation, and their personal survival. Again; they have in Iraq an example of the consequences of not having nuclear weapons when America doesn’t like you and wants your oil.
Which is why they hardened and dispersed their facilities; to prevent us from doing so. We’d need more than non-nuclear air strikes. And while Bush might well have gone nuclear - he was making noises about “nuclear bunker busters” at one point - I rather doubt that Obama would.
And yet we haven’t attacked Iran. Curious, wouldn’t you say? We also haven’t attacked Belgium lately…or myriad other countries, many of which don’t actually have nuclear weapons. So, a rational analysis would perhaps lead one to the conclusion that Iraq is an exception, a special case with special circumstances, not the general rule.
I think that most of us know that Iran isn’t trying to get nuclear weapons solely or even mainly to prevent some theoretical attack by the US. Because if they were REALLY afraid of a US attack then they would be beyond stupid for letting us know, ahead of time, that they are in the process of attempting to make the things. If we were really the comic book villains that you think we are then what has prevented us from attacking them for the last 30 years? What has prevented us from attacking all the other nations with no nuclear weapons that are ripe for our imperialistic hands?
I doubt Obama would either. But then, I doubted that Bush was poised to attack Iran either, which seems to have turned out to be the case. I am fairly confident that if the US REALLY wanted too, they could probably take out Iran’s nuclear facilities with conventional weapons, or at least set back their development for years. And yet, we don’t seem to have done so…nor do I see any more indications that we are poised to do so than I saw during the Bush administration. It seems curious to me that THEY aren’t exactly cowering in fear of our arbitrary imperialistic hand of doom, when they are following the course that they are. I mean, if I was living in fear of imminent invasion, and my only chance for survival hinged on me acquiring a certain weapon, then the last thing I’d want to do is to let the bully get even a whiff that I was working on the thing until I had it in hand and could unveil it to the world.
The reality is that Iran is it’s own worse enemy on this. They want the things not to fend off a US/EU attack (though I’m sure that’s part of their calculation), but because it will give them tremendous influence in the region…they will become THE (Shi’a) Muslim power, dominating the other states in a way that not even Saddam ever did. Iran wants to become the regions center of gravity, moving it away from western influence and, perhaps, forging an Islamic super state…or at a minimum move the region firmly into their sphere of influence. If Iran REALLY wanted to opt out, if they REALLY wanted peace and immunity from a vicious US attack, all they would have to do is give up their nuclear program, stop supporting the various terrorist groups that they support, and essentially join the rest of the world. No more sanctions. No more threats. Pretty much the Libyan model…go from an outcast who is treated like a rogue state, subject to sanction and attack, to a member of the world community, albeit one on probation. But that is NOT what Iran seemingly wants.
(Responding to the thread in general, not to any specific post)
What is a nuclear bomb? It’s a large explosive with unpleasant side effects. It is the capability to do mass property damage in a single blow. It is the ability to inflict casualties in the hundreds of thousands, if timed and detonated just right.
But a nuclear bomb is not something that wipes out a nation in one shot. Let’s suppose Iran builds one and immediately decides to show it off to the world by somehow dropping it on Tel Aviv. It goes off, blows the heart out of the city and kills hundreds of thousands. Does Israel cease to exist at that point? No they don’t. If anything, their strength and resolve increases as the whole nation comes together to kick some ass (see also support for George W. Bush post 9-11- he may have been a terrible president overall but no one thought so in the week following Sept. 11th). Israel hauls their arsenal out of the bunkers, dusts off the “special” plans and turns Tehran and the surrounding area into a parking lot.
As a simple analogy imagine someone you don’t like. You can sucker-punch this person in the face exactly one time. Doing so will break their nose, cause profuse bleeding, blacken both the eyes, et cetera. But no matter how hard you punch it’s not going to kill your opponent. And when they’ve recovered from your punch, they’re going to punch back repeatedly. Is it really worth it to punch this person in the face? Even if you really really hate them?
It’s much the same with North Korea. They have some Hiroshima-class nukes. Big enough to run your day if you’re standing too close but not exactly a can of Armageddon. But one day they decide they’ve had enough of the South Koreans and their running-dog lackeys the Americans. So they decide to haul these big bombs out and start lobbing them. But where do they lob? Seoul? Seoul could be pulped by the conventional arty that’s already there so why waste a nuke when you paid for good field guns? Ok, how about on the US troops? Ah, dammit, we just can’t seem to get them to all stand in one spot and stay still until we can drop on them! Pesky imperialists!
What I am trying to say is that there may be a plethora of soft targets or hard targets that one could use a special weapon on. But is it worth it to wipe out a tank division or a railyard or an airbase in exchange for not having a country to come home to once your opponent responds?
Iranian nukes are useless and worthless. Let them build as many as they want. Waste money and time building weapons you can never use. It was a good enough strategy to bankrupt the Soviets and they had resources vastly greater than Iran and North Korea combined.
We got bogged down in Iraq, which stalemated the neocon’s agenda.
What does Belgium have to steal that we want? Besides, they are part of the EU - which has access to nukes; they are also mostly Christian and whiter than the Iranians.
Because we’ve preferred to let stooges like Iraq do it for us.
It’s interesting how people trying to play apologist for America like bringing up that “comic book villain” line. As if criticising a nation with a long history of conquest and general aggression is childish and ridiculous. You can make fun of me all you like, but the Iranian leadership only needs to look next door or at their own history to see just how “villainous” we are. They have hundreds of thousands of corpses on both sides of the border as a counterweight to your “Oh, poo-poo, America would NEVER do anything like attack Iran!” argument. Somehow I doubt that they are more trusting and affectionate towards America than I am.
Nothing. We HAVE, quite often.
But that happens to be pretty much impossible so it’s a moot point.
XT, we’re at the “Lord Evil likes killing them non-Christian brown skinned folks, that explains his dastardly plan!” panel of the comic book.
I suggest you quit while you’re ahead.
sorry about that. I posted an incomplete response to you, which wasn’t my intent. Let me address your points in this post. In revisiting my previous reply, I can see how it was a bit cryptic.
OK. As far as US/EU credibility in that region of the world, I don’t see us having much anyway. We entered a war with Iraq because we had irrefutable “proof” that Iraq was stockpiling WMD’s, and we still haven’t found them. Our collective credibility took a direct hit on that one, and I imagine that countries/governments that aren’t friendly to the US in the ME who looked at us with a dubious credibility record before that certainly have more reason to give us the :dubious:. The US, in all practical terms, can be seen to have invented the reason we were going to war with Iraq. If we decided to bomb suspected nuclear facilities in Iran to enforce the NPT, I doubt we’d improve our credibility. In fact, it would probably reduce it even more in the region. I think the world assumes that Iran is lying about their intentions. But, in the same vein, they believe the US is lying too.
As far as the fear factor going up, is it the region’s fear factor, or the US’?
You didn’t. However, I don’t know how we would enforce the NPT without a military action. Even if it is a “surgical” strike, it would be viewed as a military action. We are already fighting in two countries in the ME… I don’t believe this country would support another action against a country in the ME that doesn’t seem to pose an immediate threat. The 9/11 terrorists didn’t have Iranian passports, and I can’t think of any terrorist actions off-hand in the last 8 years that have been directly linked to Iran.
I’ve paid attention enough to have an opinion. Again, I don’t think that as a nation, we associate the Taliban or Al-Qaeda with Iran. I’ve also not read or heard of any internal strife in Iran that reaches the level that would lead me to believe that Iran is in danger of a violent regime change. I suppose it is possible, but it doesn’t keep me up nights. I’m more concerned about the stability of Pakistan and North Korea.
If this happened in Pakistan, I agree with you. And yes, it would be a BAD THING ™. The point I was trying to make is that even with two countries with historic animosity, being a nuclear power has not caused them to USE that power. Will this always be the case? I don’t know. But I think the fact that a nuclear weapon has not been used since 1945 indicates that there is a large deterrent to actually using them. Having them gives your country a certain claim to being a military power, but I think it is a matter of perception, not of reality.
I agree. Nothing precludes Iran from doing something stupid. And if they don’t have the bomb, then doing something stupid would have less dire consequences if they have the bomb.
I believe any country that is dumb enough to drop a nuclear weapon on another nation is going to feel the wrath of the rest of the world condemning the action, followed immediately by retaliation. This inescapable fact has seemed to keep all the nuclear powers in check, and all military actions conventional. I know that because of this there is no guarantee it will continue.
Agree with your points. The simple fact is that the more countries that have them, the possibility of a nuke being used climbs. I’m not in favor of that, and I’m in favor of the NPT. But enforcement cannot simply fall on the US, especially in that region of the world. Israel cannot take action, so who in the region would be willing to?
I have been using the US as the default for the western powers. I understood that was what you meant. I should have made it clear that I am also referring to the western powers when I speak of the US.
What I meant by cold war politics was this: Denying nations what they want by sanctions (economic, political, etc) has not been too successful. Cuba is still communist. So is North Korea. We can’t FORCE countries to be what we want them to be, we can only apply pressure via non-military means (in most cases). Those in power aren’t punished by sanctions… it’s the people. And in most cases, the people of these countries just want to live their lives, have jobs and raise their families, just like us.
You may be right. I’m certainly not as concerned about Iran as say, North Korea for the simple fact that Kim Jong-il doesn’t seem to be attached to reality. If I had my choice, I would also like to see Iran remain nuke free. I would not like to see nuclear weapons proliferate to any more countries that have them today. I just don’t see how it can be avoided. Postponed, maybe… but not avoided.
Finally, to address the OP… I don’t think Iran’s credibility in the region is an issue. I mean, how much do they have at this point, anyway?
I’m too drunk to even follow what he’s saying, to be honest. So, I think I’ll take your fine advice and shuffle off this mortal message board…for the night at least.
It’s not just Iraq. Would we have invaded Afghanistan if they had nuclear weapons? Or Panama or Lebanon or Grenada? The Soviets wouldn’t have invaded Georgia, the Chinese wouldn’t have invaded Tibet, and the Iraqis wouldn’t have invaded Kuwait if their targets had had a nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons do act as a deterrent against conventional military attacks.
