Iran has joined the nuclear countries of the world
April 11, 2006 12:03 PM Subscribe
The nuclear fuel cycle at the laboratory level has been completed. At this historic moment, with the blessings of God almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants.
Industrial-scale enrichment of uranium will be the next important step which we can reach an agreement upon.
(/me makes some popcorn... settles into chair... awaits self-fulfilled fundie-made apocalypse.)
posted by basicchannel at 12:14 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by basicchannel at 12:14 PM on April 11, 2006
Odinsdream, You should care. The fact that the USA used them is of no relavence in this argument. If Iran even comes close to developing a missile launched nuke you can be damned sure that the Israelis will care, and that should be enough to make us all care. It wasn't that long ago when the Israeli Air Force bombed an Iraqi Nuculear plant...
posted by Gungho at 12:32 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by Gungho at 12:32 PM on April 11, 2006
The only country that's ever been insane enough to use them is the United States.
Every country that has them uses them, and most to great effect. Only the US has actually detonated them against an enemy.
posted by loquax at 12:34 PM on April 11, 2006
Every country that has them uses them, and most to great effect. Only the US has actually detonated them against an enemy.
posted by loquax at 12:34 PM on April 11, 2006
So what should be done about it? Should we pull back and give them space or make a big stink about it?
posted by Dean Keaton at 12:37 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by Dean Keaton at 12:37 PM on April 11, 2006
Man, that FSM is looking more and more Lovecraftian.
They keep saying they’re not going to weaponize it. I doubt that.
I’m not sure why China and Russia support freezing research, but are unwilling to pursue avenues to do that.
Unless I’ve missed moves they have made themselves....
posted by Smedleyman at 12:38 PM on April 11, 2006
They keep saying they’re not going to weaponize it. I doubt that.
I’m not sure why China and Russia support freezing research, but are unwilling to pursue avenues to do that.
Unless I’ve missed moves they have made themselves....
posted by Smedleyman at 12:38 PM on April 11, 2006
Every country that has them uses them, and most to great effect.
You forgot to put the word "deleterious" in there.
There is no obligation to play Russian roulette or chicken. The expected outcome in such games is negative; potential players should not participate.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:44 PM on April 11, 2006
You forgot to put the word "deleterious" in there.
There is no obligation to play Russian roulette or chicken. The expected outcome in such games is negative; potential players should not participate.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:44 PM on April 11, 2006
You invent a big stick, everyone wants their own big stick becasue they down't want others standing over them with the big stick.
We aren't still chastising India and Pakistan for their nuclear endevors. in fact, odd, since they tested, relations have goten a little better.
posted by edgeways at 12:47 PM on April 11, 2006
We aren't still chastising India and Pakistan for their nuclear endevors. in fact, odd, since they tested, relations have goten a little better.
posted by edgeways at 12:47 PM on April 11, 2006
You forgot to put the word "deleterious" in there.
Either way, to pretend that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is insignificant because nobody pulls the pin on the things (yes, yes, except the US 61 years ago) is wrong.
posted by loquax at 12:48 PM on April 11, 2006
Either way, to pretend that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is insignificant because nobody pulls the pin on the things (yes, yes, except the US 61 years ago) is wrong.
posted by loquax at 12:48 PM on April 11, 2006
I doubt Iran will be nuking anyone because they know the retaliation will knock them out of the 14th century back to the stone age.
posted by keswick at 12:50 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by keswick at 12:50 PM on April 11, 2006
With sixteen years of experience in the nuclear industry, I can assure anyone listening that the jump from lab level to industrial level is mind-boggling even to someone intimately familiar with the technology. Their single biggest problem will be not blowing themselves to 'kingdom come'.
] Not a nuclear explosion mind you but from the chemicals involved. They will also have to develop technologies to handle the waste, otherwise they will poison everyone within more than a few miles from the plant. [
posted by mischief at 12:51 PM on April 11, 2006
] Not a nuclear explosion mind you but from the chemicals involved. They will also have to develop technologies to handle the waste, otherwise they will poison everyone within more than a few miles from the plant. [
posted by mischief at 12:51 PM on April 11, 2006
to pretend that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is insignificant
Who's pretending that?
The US needs to stop its nuclear game-playing with Iran and India.
We should be making every attempt to disincentivise nuclear acquisition, not incentivise it by cutting deals here and making threats there.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:55 PM on April 11, 2006
Who's pretending that?
The US needs to stop its nuclear game-playing with Iran and India.
We should be making every attempt to disincentivise nuclear acquisition, not incentivise it by cutting deals here and making threats there.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:55 PM on April 11, 2006
Either way, to pretend that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is insignificant
I don't think it's "insignificant." In fact it's very significant.
A nuclear Iran is inevitable given Irans wealth and technical know-how plus the alignment of current historical events and pressure the regime feels it's under.
And since it's inevitable we should prepare a strategy that deals with Iran as another nuke power and stop pretending that that is such a horrible idea because it offends us or frightens us.
posted by tkchrist at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2006
I don't think it's "insignificant." In fact it's very significant.
A nuclear Iran is inevitable given Irans wealth and technical know-how plus the alignment of current historical events and pressure the regime feels it's under.
And since it's inevitable we should prepare a strategy that deals with Iran as another nuke power and stop pretending that that is such a horrible idea because it offends us or frightens us.
posted by tkchrist at 12:56 PM on April 11, 2006
Iran's leaders are smart enough to know that not having nuclear weapons will result in an invasion sooner or later, and they're smart enough to know that actually using the weapons - whether against the US or Israel - will result in their complete annihilation.
It's not so much that there's nothing to worry about as it is there's nothing to worry about relative to our decades-long standoff with the USSR.
posted by Ryvar at 1:02 PM on April 11, 2006
It's not so much that there's nothing to worry about as it is there's nothing to worry about relative to our decades-long standoff with the USSR.
posted by Ryvar at 1:02 PM on April 11, 2006
They can have nukes if they depose the Mullahs. OK? Otherwise, lets attack.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:03 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 1:03 PM on April 11, 2006
They can have nukes if they depose the Mullahs. OK? Otherwise, lets attack.
Duhhh, okay, deal!
posted by interrobang at 1:04 PM on April 11, 2006
Duhhh, okay, deal!
posted by interrobang at 1:04 PM on April 11, 2006
The only thing to worry about here is that this will give the Republican party more clout. Ryvar's got it right.
posted by blendor at 1:05 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by blendor at 1:05 PM on April 11, 2006
(and I'm not referring to a legal deposition [examination before trial in New York law])
posted by ParisParamus at 1:08 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 1:08 PM on April 11, 2006
Wow , that was easy.
This could become really problematic if China decides to back Iran. Particularly if Russia doesn’t.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:09 PM on April 11, 2006
This could become really problematic if China decides to back Iran. Particularly if Russia doesn’t.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:09 PM on April 11, 2006
Otherwise, lets attack.
You first. Here's an M-1 and a field jacket, have fun!
posted by keswick at 1:10 PM on April 11, 2006
You first. Here's an M-1 and a field jacket, have fun!
posted by keswick at 1:10 PM on April 11, 2006
Scott Ritter on Iran's ability to centrifuge its own uranium. Upshot: it's a hard problem, their uranium has molybdenum in it. He also points out that according to the NPT treaty, they're entitled to do exactly what they're doing; they're being punished for doing something we agreed, by treaty, that they could do.
posted by Malor at 1:12 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by Malor at 1:12 PM on April 11, 2006
With all this God stuff in his rhetoric and invoking of the almighty he sounds worryingly like another world leader we know.
posted by rhymer at 1:13 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by rhymer at 1:13 PM on April 11, 2006
Crap, I'm sorry... that's a YouTube link. Should have tagged it.
posted by Malor at 1:13 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by Malor at 1:13 PM on April 11, 2006
IF Iran had the ability...and I mean IF as I have heard SO many thoughts on this, particularly that they're more likey 20 YEARS away from anything AT LEAST, they would still need to test it.
And that's a huge thing. they have to explode something out in the middle of the ocean somewhere to make sure it works. Otherwise, if they sent an untested nuke at another country and it didn't work, they're completely FUCKED.
posted by destro at 1:16 PM on April 11, 2006
And that's a huge thing. they have to explode something out in the middle of the ocean somewhere to make sure it works. Otherwise, if they sent an untested nuke at another country and it didn't work, they're completely FUCKED.
posted by destro at 1:16 PM on April 11, 2006
They don't need to test it if they bought it from another country that tested it.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:18 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 1:18 PM on April 11, 2006
The interesting thing to me about Bush's supposed plans to attak Iran is that the administration thinks it's something "future presidents - democrat or republican - wouldn't have the courage to do."
That means Bush thinks the situation will be a stalemate at best, which from my view appears to be a reasonable assessment. Let's go back 60 years and look at the start of the Cold War. Our policy of containment did not work to stop communism. Instead of ending it, the policy allowed it to fester and grow. If we play on Iran's terms are we doomed to the same path? It sounds like our government thinks so.
So our choice appears to be between letting the situation fester and grow into a larger threat, or attack and accept all the risks associated with that option.
If I were in charge, I would propose a 3rd route. I would end all trading embargos against Iran, and let our money and Gods of commerce flow through their streets. Iran supposedly has a young population waiting to overthrow the kooks in charge over there. Wouldn't empowering them via commerce give them the tools?
posted by b_thinky at 1:20 PM on April 11, 2006
That means Bush thinks the situation will be a stalemate at best, which from my view appears to be a reasonable assessment. Let's go back 60 years and look at the start of the Cold War. Our policy of containment did not work to stop communism. Instead of ending it, the policy allowed it to fester and grow. If we play on Iran's terms are we doomed to the same path? It sounds like our government thinks so.
So our choice appears to be between letting the situation fester and grow into a larger threat, or attack and accept all the risks associated with that option.
If I were in charge, I would propose a 3rd route. I would end all trading embargos against Iran, and let our money and Gods of commerce flow through their streets. Iran supposedly has a young population waiting to overthrow the kooks in charge over there. Wouldn't empowering them via commerce give them the tools?
posted by b_thinky at 1:20 PM on April 11, 2006
Oh well... I wish I could say it's been nice knowing you Iran...
posted by wfrgms at 1:35 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by wfrgms at 1:35 PM on April 11, 2006
“Our policy of containment did not work to stop communism.”
I’ll mention that to the guys who wasted all that time in SAC-NORAD.
“Wouldn't empowering them via commerce give them the tools?” - posted by b_thinky
It’s not a bad thought. More flies with honey.
But while our distance from the middle east insulates us from a certain level of violence it also means we’re at a disadvantage when trying to sweeten our position with trade. China is the big magilla there. They’re right down the street. If they want to offer a nicer deal they are in a position to do that.
The threat isn’t so much one of pure force from Iran, as nearly everyone here (including yourself) has recognized, but of regional domination. If they do have nukes it does even the playing field a bit and we may have to - as you pointed out - adopt the cold war style of warfare. By proxy or by very limited conventional forces. In any such engagement, long term, we’re at a disadvantage. Different story with the Soviets. They didn’t have anything we needed and we had plenty of what they needed so it was easy to adopt a long term strategy and choke them out.
Here, China and Iran could marginalize our influence in the middle east. And we do need oil. And we do have big vulnerable shipping lanes.
If we got the Russians on our side, that might help, but it could also drastically destabilize our situation. If the Russians stood with China and Iran we might seriously have to think about folding (in terms of middle east influence). With the Russians aiding us we could think about making some moves - but that makes those moves far more uncertain.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:36 PM on April 11, 2006
I’ll mention that to the guys who wasted all that time in SAC-NORAD.
“Wouldn't empowering them via commerce give them the tools?” - posted by b_thinky
It’s not a bad thought. More flies with honey.
But while our distance from the middle east insulates us from a certain level of violence it also means we’re at a disadvantage when trying to sweeten our position with trade. China is the big magilla there. They’re right down the street. If they want to offer a nicer deal they are in a position to do that.
The threat isn’t so much one of pure force from Iran, as nearly everyone here (including yourself) has recognized, but of regional domination. If they do have nukes it does even the playing field a bit and we may have to - as you pointed out - adopt the cold war style of warfare. By proxy or by very limited conventional forces. In any such engagement, long term, we’re at a disadvantage. Different story with the Soviets. They didn’t have anything we needed and we had plenty of what they needed so it was easy to adopt a long term strategy and choke them out.
Here, China and Iran could marginalize our influence in the middle east. And we do need oil. And we do have big vulnerable shipping lanes.
If we got the Russians on our side, that might help, but it could also drastically destabilize our situation. If the Russians stood with China and Iran we might seriously have to think about folding (in terms of middle east influence). With the Russians aiding us we could think about making some moves - but that makes those moves far more uncertain.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:36 PM on April 11, 2006
"Songs and demonstrations on stage reflected nationalistic pride, including one with a line-up of brightly costumed men."
That was truely bizarre. I guess they felt the anouncement just wasn't dramatic enough so they needed a line of dancing guys. WTF?
posted by homunculus at 1:44 PM on April 11, 2006
That was truely bizarre. I guess they felt the anouncement just wasn't dramatic enough so they needed a line of dancing guys. WTF?
posted by homunculus at 1:44 PM on April 11, 2006
Hmm. Isn't there a group of fundies that believes Christ will only return to the Earth once the environment is completely used-up? And wouldn't the excessive use of nuclear weaponry be an excellent way to use up the environment quickly?
Perhaps we should not worry only about other countries, but also about ourselves.
posted by davejay at 1:53 PM on April 11, 2006
Perhaps we should not worry only about other countries, but also about ourselves.
posted by davejay at 1:53 PM on April 11, 2006
Iran will need to engage in underground testing in such a way that they don't harm their oil production fields.
Wow, that'll be hard.
Iran is smaller, in terms of land area, than India, but larger than Pakistan, both found it little trouble to do underground testing.
From Wikipedia: With an area of 1,648,000 square kilometers, Iran ranks sixteenth in size among the countries of the world. Iran is about one-fifth the size of the continental United States, or slightly larger than the combined area of the contiguous states of California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
Note that we do plenty of testing in a far smaller area than the above -- in particular, in a corner of Nevada. Iran, being basically mountains, has plenty of places that they can dig a deep hole and test a nuclear weapon, without risking oil or population. Furthermore, since they are a major oil producing nation, they know how to find oil and dig holes where there is, and isn't, oil.
posted by eriko at 2:04 PM on April 11, 2006
Wow, that'll be hard.
Iran is smaller, in terms of land area, than India, but larger than Pakistan, both found it little trouble to do underground testing.
From Wikipedia: With an area of 1,648,000 square kilometers, Iran ranks sixteenth in size among the countries of the world. Iran is about one-fifth the size of the continental United States, or slightly larger than the combined area of the contiguous states of California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
Note that we do plenty of testing in a far smaller area than the above -- in particular, in a corner of Nevada. Iran, being basically mountains, has plenty of places that they can dig a deep hole and test a nuclear weapon, without risking oil or population. Furthermore, since they are a major oil producing nation, they know how to find oil and dig holes where there is, and isn't, oil.
posted by eriko at 2:04 PM on April 11, 2006
b_thinky wrote:
. Let's go back 60 years and look at the start of the Cold War. Our policy of containment did not work to stop communism.
Yeah it sure does suck that it completely dominates the world now doesn't it? What would have been the result if George Bush Jr. were in the White House in 1962? Would he have worked out a diplomatic solution or listened to the hawks who wanted to attack Cuba? The answer is pretty obvious, it always is when you are dealing with stupid people with chips on their shoulders.
posted by any major dude at 2:34 PM on April 11, 2006
. Let's go back 60 years and look at the start of the Cold War. Our policy of containment did not work to stop communism.
Yeah it sure does suck that it completely dominates the world now doesn't it? What would have been the result if George Bush Jr. were in the White House in 1962? Would he have worked out a diplomatic solution or listened to the hawks who wanted to attack Cuba? The answer is pretty obvious, it always is when you are dealing with stupid people with chips on their shoulders.
posted by any major dude at 2:34 PM on April 11, 2006
"If you’re sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they’ve got nukes and missiles—you’ve got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and there’s no reason to back off."
- Robert Baer
posted by basicchannel at 2:35 PM on April 11, 2006
- Robert Baer
posted by basicchannel at 2:35 PM on April 11, 2006
from basicchannel’s link:
“Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love it,” he said. “If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run.”
Hmmm... We market everything else. Why not?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:54 PM on April 11, 2006
“Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love it,” he said. “If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run.”
Hmmm... We market everything else. Why not?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:54 PM on April 11, 2006
Smedleyman, we're doing that too, but a revolution in 10 or 20 years is not going to be sufficient.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:16 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 3:16 PM on April 11, 2006
"The experts . . . were nearly unanimous on one crucial point: what might seem America’s ace in the hole—the ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations in a pre-emptive air strike—was a fantasy." [Atlantic subscription article]
We're going to have to figure out some way to get along with those we are diametrically opposed to. I suppose that's not a bad thing, but why would this idea work out now after humanity flunked the previous 4000 years? As much as I doubt the Bush Administration's ability to suck it up and ignore their pride, the fellas in Iran seem a bit more strident.
posted by yerfatma at 3:16 PM on April 11, 2006
We're going to have to figure out some way to get along with those we are diametrically opposed to. I suppose that's not a bad thing, but why would this idea work out now after humanity flunked the previous 4000 years? As much as I doubt the Bush Administration's ability to suck it up and ignore their pride, the fellas in Iran seem a bit more strident.
posted by yerfatma at 3:16 PM on April 11, 2006
after humanity flunked the previous 4000 years?
huh? Begging your pardon, but LOL -- that's priceless commentary.
posted by undule at 3:32 PM on April 11, 2006
huh? Begging your pardon, but LOL -- that's priceless commentary.
posted by undule at 3:32 PM on April 11, 2006
Our policy of containment did not work to stop communism. Instead of ending it, the policy allowed it to fester and grow.
LOL! Oh dude. That was a good one!
Of course it worked. It was REAL expensive (in fact we are still paying for it and will for some time). Sure it didn't work as perfectly as the wing-nuts want you to believe. But it worked.
We DID contain communism. And we did it without invading frigg'n Russia. We invaded about every where else though. Either by proxy or with KFC franchises.
But I agree that opening up commerce with Iran is a good idea.
Post Operation Iraqi Freedom the only way to get Iran to NOT deploy a significant Nuke weapon program would be for them to either: A) Have another revolution —or— B) Get fat and happy enough that they won't want to risk a big war. Or both.
However, right now there are too many reasons, supplied in plenty by Mr. Bush, for Iran to want nukes.
posted by tkchrist at 3:49 PM on April 11, 2006
LOL! Oh dude. That was a good one!
Of course it worked. It was REAL expensive (in fact we are still paying for it and will for some time). Sure it didn't work as perfectly as the wing-nuts want you to believe. But it worked.
We DID contain communism. And we did it without invading frigg'n Russia. We invaded about every where else though. Either by proxy or with KFC franchises.
But I agree that opening up commerce with Iran is a good idea.
Post Operation Iraqi Freedom the only way to get Iran to NOT deploy a significant Nuke weapon program would be for them to either: A) Have another revolution —or— B) Get fat and happy enough that they won't want to risk a big war. Or both.
However, right now there are too many reasons, supplied in plenty by Mr. Bush, for Iran to want nukes.
posted by tkchrist at 3:49 PM on April 11, 2006
Malor, that Ritter clip was great. Cheers.
posted by The Monkey at 4:01 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by The Monkey at 4:01 PM on April 11, 2006
Hmm. Isn't there a group of fundies that believes Christ will only return to the Earth once the environment is completely used-up? And wouldn't the excessive use of nuclear weaponry be an excellent way to use up the environment quickly?
Perhaps we should not worry only about other countries, but also about ourselves.
posted by davejay at 3:53 PM CST on April 11 [!]
I think you forgot to mention the part about Christ being a huge fairy tale. Let's get things back to rationality and logic, here.
posted by cellphone at 4:06 PM on April 11, 2006
Perhaps we should not worry only about other countries, but also about ourselves.
posted by davejay at 3:53 PM CST on April 11 [!]
I think you forgot to mention the part about Christ being a huge fairy tale. Let's get things back to rationality and logic, here.
posted by cellphone at 4:06 PM on April 11, 2006
huh? Begging your pardon, but LOL
I wrote myself into a bit of a corner. I meant, "Since widespread getting-along is a bit sparse in the history of man." Only less stilted than that too.
posted by yerfatma at 4:10 PM on April 11, 2006
I wrote myself into a bit of a corner. I meant, "Since widespread getting-along is a bit sparse in the history of man." Only less stilted than that too.
posted by yerfatma at 4:10 PM on April 11, 2006
Scott Ritter rules
(thanks, except PP, who we may safely now consider to be a troll)
posted by Substrata at 4:55 PM on April 11, 2006
(thanks, except PP, who we may safely now consider to be a troll)
posted by Substrata at 4:55 PM on April 11, 2006
You know who else had a nuclear program? Hitler.
----
Beyond the perception of danger of Iran having a/some nukes, the question is - what is the target?
I don’t see any gain in hitting us with a nuke now. Katrina nailed our largest oil (and steel) port (it’s not LA-LB).
Not to sound cavalier, but lives are not the primary target of nuclear weapons.
Or rather if they are, it would be a waste.
Let’s say ‘they’ get one into NY or LA or Chicago, etc. Bang. Dead people - what’s the point?
Once the U.S. discovers who did it (and we will) nearly everyone and his brother will be howling to turn their homeland, their allies, people that owe them money, into radioactive glass.
Similar situation on the battlefield. Nuke our troops and all limitations on warfare are out the window.
The only advantage to having a nuclear weapon now is to either use it as a threat to cover conventional operations (and asymmetric operations - terr) or use it to threaten Israel. Actually doing it (nuking Israel, or the US) would invite serious retaliation. (This aside from having a nuke for regional ascendancy, or as a reflection of nationalism or technical prowess, etc. pride)
Again, sounds flip, but 5 to 10 million dead as a one shot thing is not that big a deal considering the payback.
Which by all estimation would be final. Perhaps a limited nuclear strike, but most certainly economic - and very likely a loss of sovereignty. Not anything beyond the five members of the UN Sec council much less the whole UN.
The only thing this does have a good chance of screwing up is Iraqi stability.
It gives Iran the big stick in the region (they don’t have to worry about other nuclear powers playing games) and, with their conventional forces, means they don’t have to worry about mixing it up in a major war in the region (that is with the Turks and Iran and the Kurds in the north - the Peshmerga, they all have no love for each other, meanwhile the Badr Brigade kicks the shit out of the Sunnis; things spiral, etc. etc. etc).
Iran does that and they hand us a hornets nest we have to deal with, fighting/training terrorists, while they get strong in the meantime.
Which would in fact really screw us up and is the only angle I can see that presses us for time.
But I don’t know that they’re that on top of things, considering their domestic issues.
China REALLY wants a stable oil supply. But the Russians and Indians want it too.
I’d let them make those moves - perhaps Russia and/or the EU so Iran doesn’t lose face.
A nuke could also stabilize Iran’s (currently schizophrenic) power structure - you know who is in power if he’s got the bombs.
Either way - perhaps the Nixon doctrine towards China will work with Iran. We just focus on and talk to the group we like.
Bomb or no bomb we still have to change their policy towards Israel and Palestine, and their support of militant groups in the area.
That’s not going to be accomplished by using force.
--
“thanks, except PP, who we may safely now consider to be a troll”
Fuck, y’know - ban me. Because I’m answering him. He didn’t say shit in this thread that was inflamatory or attack anyone personally. He responded to me with a reasonable (albeit brief) comment so I’m addressing it with my own (albeit lengthy) comment.
Nothing at all personal, but it pisses me off when I’m misunderstood and get hacked on. PP and I have a vast gulf of difference in perspective going back - but in this particular thread, I don’t see the problem.
Detach the name from the comment and address the idea. Or ignore it. Or flag it. And, walking what I talk, let me make clear I’m just addressing this ‘it’s ok to piss on certain people’ thing not your specific comment. Antagonize anyone enough and they lose focus, perspective, cogency, etc.
I don’t get where it’s ok to poke the dog with a stick, but cry when it bites you and get mom to put it out in the rain thing.
Again to be clear - not that that is what you specifically are doing - I’ve just got a heightened sensitivity in general and I’m not addressing whether PP is or isn’t a troll in general. Just that here - he was reasonable enough to me and I don’t see where - in this thread - he pissed on anyone.
/...man, beating the crap out of a couple students really does wonders for my patience.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:16 PM on April 11, 2006
----
Beyond the perception of danger of Iran having a/some nukes, the question is - what is the target?
I don’t see any gain in hitting us with a nuke now. Katrina nailed our largest oil (and steel) port (it’s not LA-LB).
Not to sound cavalier, but lives are not the primary target of nuclear weapons.
Or rather if they are, it would be a waste.
Let’s say ‘they’ get one into NY or LA or Chicago, etc. Bang. Dead people - what’s the point?
Once the U.S. discovers who did it (and we will) nearly everyone and his brother will be howling to turn their homeland, their allies, people that owe them money, into radioactive glass.
Similar situation on the battlefield. Nuke our troops and all limitations on warfare are out the window.
The only advantage to having a nuclear weapon now is to either use it as a threat to cover conventional operations (and asymmetric operations - terr) or use it to threaten Israel. Actually doing it (nuking Israel, or the US) would invite serious retaliation. (This aside from having a nuke for regional ascendancy, or as a reflection of nationalism or technical prowess, etc. pride)
Again, sounds flip, but 5 to 10 million dead as a one shot thing is not that big a deal considering the payback.
Which by all estimation would be final. Perhaps a limited nuclear strike, but most certainly economic - and very likely a loss of sovereignty. Not anything beyond the five members of the UN Sec council much less the whole UN.
The only thing this does have a good chance of screwing up is Iraqi stability.
It gives Iran the big stick in the region (they don’t have to worry about other nuclear powers playing games) and, with their conventional forces, means they don’t have to worry about mixing it up in a major war in the region (that is with the Turks and Iran and the Kurds in the north - the Peshmerga, they all have no love for each other, meanwhile the Badr Brigade kicks the shit out of the Sunnis; things spiral, etc. etc. etc).
Iran does that and they hand us a hornets nest we have to deal with, fighting/training terrorists, while they get strong in the meantime.
Which would in fact really screw us up and is the only angle I can see that presses us for time.
But I don’t know that they’re that on top of things, considering their domestic issues.
China REALLY wants a stable oil supply. But the Russians and Indians want it too.
I’d let them make those moves - perhaps Russia and/or the EU so Iran doesn’t lose face.
A nuke could also stabilize Iran’s (currently schizophrenic) power structure - you know who is in power if he’s got the bombs.
Either way - perhaps the Nixon doctrine towards China will work with Iran. We just focus on and talk to the group we like.
Bomb or no bomb we still have to change their policy towards Israel and Palestine, and their support of militant groups in the area.
That’s not going to be accomplished by using force.
--
“thanks, except PP, who we may safely now consider to be a troll”
Fuck, y’know - ban me. Because I’m answering him. He didn’t say shit in this thread that was inflamatory or attack anyone personally. He responded to me with a reasonable (albeit brief) comment so I’m addressing it with my own (albeit lengthy) comment.
Nothing at all personal, but it pisses me off when I’m misunderstood and get hacked on. PP and I have a vast gulf of difference in perspective going back - but in this particular thread, I don’t see the problem.
Detach the name from the comment and address the idea. Or ignore it. Or flag it. And, walking what I talk, let me make clear I’m just addressing this ‘it’s ok to piss on certain people’ thing not your specific comment. Antagonize anyone enough and they lose focus, perspective, cogency, etc.
I don’t get where it’s ok to poke the dog with a stick, but cry when it bites you and get mom to put it out in the rain thing.
Again to be clear - not that that is what you specifically are doing - I’ve just got a heightened sensitivity in general and I’m not addressing whether PP is or isn’t a troll in general. Just that here - he was reasonable enough to me and I don’t see where - in this thread - he pissed on anyone.
/...man, beating the crap out of a couple students really does wonders for my patience.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:16 PM on April 11, 2006
/and not to take away your right to your opinion either, Substrata. It just happens I’m the one talking to him is all.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:21 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by Smedleyman at 5:21 PM on April 11, 2006
Smed - your right. The nukes Iran will end up with will be — by our standards — tactical stand-off weapons. Stand-off weapons. As in "keep your carrier task-force way out of the straights, mother fuckers."
I said this before (and got no end of shit from some people here) Iran getting nukes COULD be (depending on how WE plan for it) the shake up the M.E. needs. The over-due shake-up the neo-cons foolishly thought invading Iraq would provide. The neo-con idea was an idiotic "bold-strokes" kind of thing that only attempted to address one side of the issue. They didn't get that what needs shaking-up is OUR policy about the region.
posted by tkchrist at 5:50 PM on April 11, 2006
I said this before (and got no end of shit from some people here) Iran getting nukes COULD be (depending on how WE plan for it) the shake up the M.E. needs. The over-due shake-up the neo-cons foolishly thought invading Iraq would provide. The neo-con idea was an idiotic "bold-strokes" kind of thing that only attempted to address one side of the issue. They didn't get that what needs shaking-up is OUR policy about the region.
posted by tkchrist at 5:50 PM on April 11, 2006
All I know is that we will have no say in how this plays out.
posted by furtive at 6:15 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by furtive at 6:15 PM on April 11, 2006
Carlin's take is my favorite:
"They have bigger dicks than us?? BOMB THEM!!"
So frustrating that international relations so closely resemble 4-year-olds battling over a sandbox. There's a lot of fanfare, paint and banners piled over it, but it's really just a bunch of massive egos waving their dicks at each other.
Too bad the regular people who just want to have a nice life and be left along have to put up with this crap.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:34 PM on April 11, 2006
"They have bigger dicks than us?? BOMB THEM!!"
So frustrating that international relations so closely resemble 4-year-olds battling over a sandbox. There's a lot of fanfare, paint and banners piled over it, but it's really just a bunch of massive egos waving their dicks at each other.
Too bad the regular people who just want to have a nice life and be left along have to put up with this crap.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:34 PM on April 11, 2006
Too bad the regular people who just want to have a nice life and be left along have to put up with this crap.
We don't. That's the tragedy. It doesn't have to be this way.
posted by beth at 8:16 PM on April 11, 2006
We don't. That's the tragedy. It doesn't have to be this way.
posted by beth at 8:16 PM on April 11, 2006
Is that a fuse on that dove?
When India and Pakistan both got nuclear weapons within a short time, I figured that one or the other was going to start tossing them, and all hell would break loose. It didn't - and I think it was because the leaders of both realized they had FAR more to lose than gain from their use. You get a nuke, and all of a sudden your national perspective changes. Border skirmishes are one thing - blowing up your neighbor's capital is another.
Anyone with a semblance of sanity would realize that. Ryvar thinks that the leadership of Iran realizes that although they may get them, they'll be destroyed if they use them - so they won't dare use them.
This assumes a certain amount of rationality on the part of the Iranian leadership. I wouldn't be willing to bet that part of the world on a shakey premise like that. Unfortunately, waiting for Ahmadinejad to die of old age doesn't seem to be worth hoping for. I don't think he's going to step down at the end of his term.
b_thinky believes that 'containment' allowed Communism to grow. Looking at the historical record, there's something to that - it DID grow slowly up until the time the USSR took a bite out of Afghanistan and got near-fatal indigestion. Reagan's acceleration of an economic war against the USSR with 'Star Wars' hastened the end. By dropping all sanctions - it MIGHT cause a revolution. It's hard to tell.
Looks like interesting times ahead, unfortunately.
posted by JB71 at 9:05 PM on April 11, 2006
When India and Pakistan both got nuclear weapons within a short time, I figured that one or the other was going to start tossing them, and all hell would break loose. It didn't - and I think it was because the leaders of both realized they had FAR more to lose than gain from their use. You get a nuke, and all of a sudden your national perspective changes. Border skirmishes are one thing - blowing up your neighbor's capital is another.
Anyone with a semblance of sanity would realize that. Ryvar thinks that the leadership of Iran realizes that although they may get them, they'll be destroyed if they use them - so they won't dare use them.
This assumes a certain amount of rationality on the part of the Iranian leadership. I wouldn't be willing to bet that part of the world on a shakey premise like that. Unfortunately, waiting for Ahmadinejad to die of old age doesn't seem to be worth hoping for. I don't think he's going to step down at the end of his term.
b_thinky believes that 'containment' allowed Communism to grow. Looking at the historical record, there's something to that - it DID grow slowly up until the time the USSR took a bite out of Afghanistan and got near-fatal indigestion. Reagan's acceleration of an economic war against the USSR with 'Star Wars' hastened the end. By dropping all sanctions - it MIGHT cause a revolution. It's hard to tell.
Looks like interesting times ahead, unfortunately.
posted by JB71 at 9:05 PM on April 11, 2006
It needs to be said quickly and loudly: Iran must be nuked into submission. Buhbye!
posted by zagszman at 10:06 PM on April 11, 2006
posted by zagszman at 10:06 PM on April 11, 2006
Ronald McDonald did as much to end the cold war as Ronald Reagan. This is not to slight Reagan - I think he was a great president - but our commerce is our biggest asset, not our military.
posted by b_thinky at 12:05 AM on April 12, 2006
posted by b_thinky at 12:05 AM on April 12, 2006
China owns a huge chunk of the US debt. What happens if China wants to play friends with Iran, and we don't like it?
I appreciate the sovereign nation of Iran's right to self determination. I can appreciate very easily their desire to have nuclear power. Even their oil won't last forever. Bombs I'd rather they not make, but I wish we'd all agree to be rid of those God-damned things forever.
But you know, folks get real polite to eachother when they're both well armed. It's the little guy backed into a corner that is so dangerous. His fear makes him irrational. Sure, the big guy can beat him, but the big guy may bleed in the process.
What a tragedy that we are so at odds with Iran. A beautiful country with beautiful people. A diverse culture full of history, and mostly decent folks.
Is America so stupid and so full of hate that it will destroy itself in an effort to control another nation? Didn't the USSR loose the cold war that way? Can't we learn by their example, or must we too go down?
America simply can't afford another war, in human terms, financial terms, diplomatic, or militarily. Why is America suicidal? Blinded by the Cult of Bush and the PNAC neo-cons?
posted by Goofyy at 12:35 AM on April 12, 2006
I appreciate the sovereign nation of Iran's right to self determination. I can appreciate very easily their desire to have nuclear power. Even their oil won't last forever. Bombs I'd rather they not make, but I wish we'd all agree to be rid of those God-damned things forever.
But you know, folks get real polite to eachother when they're both well armed. It's the little guy backed into a corner that is so dangerous. His fear makes him irrational. Sure, the big guy can beat him, but the big guy may bleed in the process.
What a tragedy that we are so at odds with Iran. A beautiful country with beautiful people. A diverse culture full of history, and mostly decent folks.
Is America so stupid and so full of hate that it will destroy itself in an effort to control another nation? Didn't the USSR loose the cold war that way? Can't we learn by their example, or must we too go down?
America simply can't afford another war, in human terms, financial terms, diplomatic, or militarily. Why is America suicidal? Blinded by the Cult of Bush and the PNAC neo-cons?
posted by Goofyy at 12:35 AM on April 12, 2006
Why is America suicidal? Blinded by the Cult of Bush and the PNAC neo-cons?
Pretty much ! Abortion is homicide, but bombing infidels and their not aborted born babies is a-ok.
posted by elpapacito at 1:12 AM on April 12, 2006
Pretty much ! Abortion is homicide, but bombing infidels and their not aborted born babies is a-ok.
posted by elpapacito at 1:12 AM on April 12, 2006
I'll feel better once this Ahmadinejad creep is gone. His face makes me queasy.
posted by shoos at 1:17 AM on April 12, 2006
posted by shoos at 1:17 AM on April 12, 2006
Iran obviously don't watch classic 80's films, otherwise they'd know that "the only winning move is not to play".
Why not settle international arguments with a nice game of chess, eh?
posted by Chunder at 1:56 AM on April 12, 2006
Why not settle international arguments with a nice game of chess, eh?
posted by Chunder at 1:56 AM on April 12, 2006
Yeah, all you've got to do is get all the lunatics on both sides to agree to abide by the outcome.
Let me know when that happens, 'k?
posted by JB71 at 7:34 AM on April 12, 2006
Let me know when that happens, 'k?
posted by JB71 at 7:34 AM on April 12, 2006
"China owns a huge chunk of the US debt. What happens if China wants to play friends with Iran, and we don't like it?"
Nothing.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:12 AM on April 12, 2006
Nothing.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:12 AM on April 12, 2006
Um -Paris, it’d be nice if you provided some background information.
I suspect you mean either that given the amount of economic & military muscle the U.S. has the world bank will back us in nearly any dispute with China or that since the dollar isn’t backed with anything except the word of the federal reserve - which is itself not a part of the government - it doesn’t matter anyway or that so much of the world’s stability hinges on the dollar and the Euro isn’t yet strong enough to be the backbone of the world economy that it again is irrelevent - or that the money itself doesn’t work that way and China’s investment in is isn’t the same as a direct investment and they can’t call their loans early or...
...y’know, as right or wrong any of that is as a picture of the situation, it’s all just speculation on my part as to what you mean.
“It's the little guy backed into a corner that is so dangerous. His fear makes him irrational.”
Dead on.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:45 AM on April 12, 2006
I suspect you mean either that given the amount of economic & military muscle the U.S. has the world bank will back us in nearly any dispute with China or that since the dollar isn’t backed with anything except the word of the federal reserve - which is itself not a part of the government - it doesn’t matter anyway or that so much of the world’s stability hinges on the dollar and the Euro isn’t yet strong enough to be the backbone of the world economy that it again is irrelevent - or that the money itself doesn’t work that way and China’s investment in is isn’t the same as a direct investment and they can’t call their loans early or...
...y’know, as right or wrong any of that is as a picture of the situation, it’s all just speculation on my part as to what you mean.
“It's the little guy backed into a corner that is so dangerous. His fear makes him irrational.”
Dead on.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:45 AM on April 12, 2006
Gooffy - If China owns such a big portion of our 'debt', why would they purposely undermine the value of that capital? Just curious...
I think you might be inserting the wrong talking point into your argument...
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:08 AM on April 12, 2006
I think you might be inserting the wrong talking point into your argument...
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:08 AM on April 12, 2006
Mutually Assured Dementia (billmon)--... it is probably naive to expect the American public to react with horror, remorse or even shock to a U.S. nuclear sneak attack on Iran, even though it would be one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable, short of mass genocide. What I'm suggesting here is that it is probably naive to expect the American public to react with horror, remorse or even shock to a U.S. nuclear sneak attack on Iran, even though it would be one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable, short of mass genocide. Iran has been demonized too successfully – thanks in no small part to the messianic delusions of its own end-times president – for most Americans to see it as a victim of aggression, even if they were inclined to admit that the United States could ever be an aggressor. And we know a not-so-small and extremely vocal minority of Americans would be cheering all the way, and lusting for more.
More to my point, though, I think it's possible that even something as monstrously insane as nuclear war could still be squeezed into the tiny rituals that pass for public debate in this country – the game of dueling TV sound bites that trivializes and then disposes of every issue. ...
posted by amberglow at 9:11 PM on April 12, 2006
More to my point, though, I think it's possible that even something as monstrously insane as nuclear war could still be squeezed into the tiny rituals that pass for public debate in this country – the game of dueling TV sound bites that trivializes and then disposes of every issue. ...
posted by amberglow at 9:11 PM on April 12, 2006
I hereby award the Dark Stain of College Republican Valor to PP! Now go get 'em!
posted by nofundy at 7:42 AM on April 13, 2006
posted by nofundy at 7:42 AM on April 13, 2006
Answer: in the first place, what are you suggesting, that the Chinese decide that don't want to own US Treasury notes and bonds? Well, they would have to sell them to someone else, so they can't unilaterally decide; we have their $s already; they have our promise to repay with interest, no? So, nothing will happen.
Or do you mean Chinese direct investment in the US? There isn't that much.
Or do you mean refusing to sell to us? OK, so we start getting goods from other Asian countries.
And no, I will not provide a link for every damn assertion I make on Metafilter.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:23 AM on April 13, 2006
Or do you mean Chinese direct investment in the US? There isn't that much.
Or do you mean refusing to sell to us? OK, so we start getting goods from other Asian countries.
And no, I will not provide a link for every damn assertion I make on Metafilter.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:23 AM on April 13, 2006
PS: College Republicans, at least while I was in college, were vile. I think it takes one at least 30 years or life to realize how asinine the liberal/leftist take on things usually is. So College Republicans are largely twits.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:25 AM on April 13, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 8:25 AM on April 13, 2006
Oh, as for the scenario that the Chineses stop purchasing US Treasury instruments, what else are they going to do with the dollars we send them?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:27 AM on April 13, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 8:27 AM on April 13, 2006
Chinese, not Chineses.
PS: When we conventionally bomb Iran, the nuclear talk will be seen as having lulled the world; it will be a relief.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:29 AM on April 13, 2006
PS: When we conventionally bomb Iran, the nuclear talk will be seen as having lulled the world; it will be a relief.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:29 AM on April 13, 2006
Also, notice how stupid, shortsighted, and amoral the world's reaction was when Israel took out Iraq's reactor. More difficult task this time, perhaps beyond Israel's abilities, but something with, pretty much the same urgency.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:43 AM on April 13, 2006
posted by ParisParamus at 8:43 AM on April 13, 2006
US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say
posted by homunculus at 3:40 PM on April 13, 2006
posted by homunculus at 3:40 PM on April 13, 2006
on Iran and Rumsfeld--Feb 05: ... "Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah - we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."
Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed its implementation ...
Rumsfeld will become even more important during the second term. In interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election, and much of it would be Rumsfeld's responsibility. The war on terrorism would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon's control. ...
The President's decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) "The Pentagon doesn't feel obligated to report any of this to Congress," the former high-level intelligence official said. "They don't even call it 'covert ops' it's too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it's 'black reconnaissance.' They're not even going to tell the cincs" the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)
In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. "Everyone is saying, 'You can't be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,' " the former intelligence official told me. "But they say, 'We've got some lessons learned not militarily, but how we did it politically. We're not going to rely on agency pissants.' No loose ends, and that's why the C.I.A. is out of there." ...
posted by amberglow at 8:41 AM on April 15, 2006
Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed its implementation ...
Rumsfeld will become even more important during the second term. In interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election, and much of it would be Rumsfeld's responsibility. The war on terrorism would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon's control. ...
The President's decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) "The Pentagon doesn't feel obligated to report any of this to Congress," the former high-level intelligence official said. "They don't even call it 'covert ops' it's too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it's 'black reconnaissance.' They're not even going to tell the cincs" the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)
In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. "Everyone is saying, 'You can't be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,' " the former intelligence official told me. "But they say, 'We've got some lessons learned not militarily, but how we did it politically. We're not going to rely on agency pissants.' No loose ends, and that's why the C.I.A. is out of there." ...
posted by amberglow at 8:41 AM on April 15, 2006
« Older Paper Hearts - from the makers of Fear of Girls | 聖獣学園 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
what's interesting is that this isn't a terribly new development, which means Ahmadinejad is probably using this for political purposes only, rather than announcing anything new.
posted by WetherMan at 12:10 PM on April 11, 2006