hrothgar Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 Again I fail to see why that big of a difference, we did it in less than 3 years with 1940's technology. I wish they told us why it is going to take Iran 10 years when we did it in 3. Maybe the US back in 1940 was willing/able to devote more resources than the Iranians can muster today? The Newshour is having some extensive discussions on thsi topic right now. They are being careful to note that Iranians have announced that they have enriched Uranium to 3.5%. Apparantly you need to enrich Uranium to 90% for use in bombs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceptic Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 Unfortunately, once you decide that its OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons what gives you the right (America not Richard, or whoever is "you") to decide if it is ok for us to have nuclear weapons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 Unfortunately, once you decide that its OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons what gives you the right (America not Richard, or whoever is "you") to decide if it is ok for us to have nuclear weapons? i thought we'd settled this :rolleyes: might makes right, obviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 Unfortunately, once you decide that its OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons what gives you the right (America not Richard, or whoever is "you") to decide if it is ok for us to have nuclear weapons? We're the chosen people of the Lord God almighty... We're the only people on the planet with the intelligence, judgement, and forebearance to ensure that no one ever uses an atomic weapon in anger. And if anyone disagrees we'll bomb you back to the stone age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 whats that old Groundhogs album from the 60'sThank Christ for the Bomb ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 recent article http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060412/pl_nm/...ear_iran_usa_dc i notice the UN sent a 'strongly worded letter' to iran... that's very serious because the next step is an admonishment... if that doesn't get their attention, nothing will and from the london times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2131695,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 12, 2006 Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 Interesting article in this month's Altantic http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2006 Interesting article in this month's Altantic http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran very interesting reading... i wonder if there are strategic planners who (objectively, meaning with no dog in the fight) disagree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 "i thought we'd settled this might makes right, obviously" As was so conclusively proven on 9/11/2001. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 "i thought we'd settled this might makes right, obviously" As was so conclusively proven on 9/11/2001. Peter i think you're confusing terrorism with might... also, what has that got to do with preventing iran from obtaining nukes? btw, you left out the smiley i had in that post, probably an accident the final chapter on that day has not been written Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Interesting article in this month's Altantic http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran It's consistent with just about every expert opinion that I have heard or read in the media over here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 "i think you're confusing terrorism with might..." No confusion here. The unprincipled use of lethal force... "also, what has that got to do with preventing iran from obtaining nukes?" I leave that as an exercise for the student ;) "btw, you left out the smiley i had in that post, probably an accident" Ah, the evils of copy and paste. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Some notes from 2 long tv shows on Iran and Nukes last 2 days:1) Top Democrats believe military option is worse than letting Iran have nukes.2) Ind. Panel says same thing.3) Iran wants Nukes for prestige, ego thingy....4) If Iran gets them then Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, New Iraq will want them too, this is bad but we can do nothing.5) All mad at Bush for not talking more with Iran, in fact mad at all USA governments last 25 years for not talking more on this issue.6) They all say 5-10 years before they get Nukes but do not discuss why we and USSR did in it 3 years with 1940's technology.7) They say sanctions may work but this just seems silly, Sanctions will fall apart in days or weeks I strongly believe.8) Iran will just sell the oil to someone else at a cutrate, I think.9) These panels seem to say blackmail us and the world and we will cave and pay up. Blackmail works! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 "These panels seem to say blackmail us and the world and we will cave and pay up. Blackmail works! " "Pay up?" The panels are saying that there will be bad consequences for us if we attack another country. Not attacking is hardly "paying up". Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 Ahmedinejad was elected under the mandate that he was going to spread the wealth amongst he country. If anything, since he has come to power, the exact opposite has happened. The Revolutionary guard has become stronger and more influential (as beftting the President's background) and the wealth has certainly not made it to the poorer strata of Iranian society. Thus, the best option appears to be to gently encourage populist revolt in the same way the Soviet Union collapsed. The key is to arm the Iranian people with all the information, not just that which their state provides them. Give them the choice and see if they will empower themselves. There is already a lot of tension bubbling under the surface of Iranian society, heavily divided as it is on racial, religious and tribal divides. A lot of it is ruthlessly oppressed. It wouldn't take much to rouse some factions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 >6) They all say 5-10 years before they get Nukes but do not discuss why >we and USSR did in it 3 years with 1940's technology. As I noted a couple times before, this boils down to resources. The US economy draws on the resources of a continent.During the 1940s, we were involved in a war of National survival.The project still strained our economy. In a similar fashion, the Soviet Union was a very large command economy. Once again, these economies are very good at mobililzing resources. In contrast, Iran is at best second world. They will recieve VERY little help from outside their own country in developing a bomb. Coupled with this, the Irans are being forced to disperse and bury their factories, sustantially increasing development costs. >9) These panels seem to say blackmail us and the world and we will cave >and pay up. Blackmail works! I think the "lesson" of Iran is a simply one: The US has been acting as a rogue state. The US government committed itself to a policy of preemptive regime change in Iraq and is threating the Iranian government. Coupled with this, the US shut down negotiations with Iran over the last two years. I don't find it surprising that other governments are taking steps to protect themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 the reason MAD worked, despite some pretty hairy encounters, had to do with the relative sanity of the two superpowers... some seem to think that if iran gets nukes that'll be the end of it... do you think it will, or do you think what mike wrote is more likely? do you think egypt, et al, will also want the bomb? and finally, do any of you honestly believe there is no difference between the ussr having nukes during the cold war and some of the middle eastern countries we're discussing? iow, do you think iran is relatively sane or relatively insane? i still think israel will have to be muzzled by the usa, and i'm not sure that will happen - regardless of the party in power here (read some of hillary clinton's words on this subject, for example) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted April 13, 2006 Report Share Posted April 13, 2006 "iow, do you think iran is relatively sane or relatively insane" I think that they are sane, to the extent that they realize what would happen if they launched a nuclear attack on the U.S. or Israel, and do not want that to happen. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, given this narrow but relevant definition of insanity? Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 only their words... it's easy to dismiss their avowal of israel's destruction as rhetoric, but there were people in the us during the '30s who dismissed things said by hitler as rhetoric... we see with many in the arab world a continuation of 'a solution to the jewish problem'... these are people who burn and loot over cartoons... why people might think they're just kidding is beyond me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 What words make you think they are suicidally insane? Not "crazy". Suicidally insane. Peter P.S. The Hitler analogy is the most overused analogy in political discussion, by both ends of the political spectrum. It usually doesn't apply, as here. Iran will not invade us. It is a real stretch, and exposes the flimsiness of your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Peter I do not think many worry that Iran will invade anyone. The concern is Iran will bomb someone or give someone the bomb who will bomb someone. Or that someone (non USA) will bomb Iran first that results in more bombs. That someone will bomb someone else. End result mass USA deaths at the end of this string. If this is nonsense or very very unlikely then Iran having the bomb is a nonissue for the USA. I think the main issue is will Iran getting the bomb somehow result in mass USA deaths? You seem to argue (perhaps not) that the answer is a strong NO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 "Peter I do not think many worry that Iran will invade anyone." Well, they won't invade us, anyway. That was my point about the silly Hitler analogy - he has become the generic bogeyman, invoked when facts and logic fail. "You seem to argue (perhaps not) that the answer is a strong NO." I think it is VERY unlikely. I notice that you don't give an argument as to their being suicidally insane. The fact that they are undeniably a very bad government (in many ways) is irrelevant to the discussion (though relevant to other discussions we might have). The question is, will they attack a nuclear power who would certainly retaliate, causing more Iranians to die than U.S. or Israeli citizens Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 "The fact that they are undeniably a very bad government (in many ways) is irrelevant to the discussion (though relevant to other discussions we might have). The question is, will they attack a nuclear power who would certainly retaliate, causing more Iranians to die than U.S. or Israeli citizens Peter" I strongly disagree that this is the best way to frame the question. For example perhaps some Sunni State will bomb Iran before Iran bombs anyone? Example, Iran gets the bomb so Sunni Turkey or Egypt or Saudi Arabia gets the bomb or new Iraq gets the bomb, Arabs versus Persians versus Sunni vs Shia.... or.... Iran a known terror state gives the bomb or sort of gives a bomb to some stateless entity who cares less what countries get bombed. We cannot prove Iran or radical elements in Iran gave the information away so who do we bomb back? Of course if you think this is very very unlikely, then Iran having the bomb is a nonissue at least for USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 If the moon was made of green cheese and the finest red wine, then we could send astronauts there without any food or water. What an argument for the space program! "I strongly disagree that this is the best way to frame the question. For example perhaps some Sunni State will bomb Iran before Iran bombs anyone? Example, Iran gets the bomb so Sunni Turkey or Egypt or Saudi Arabia gets the bomb or new Iraq gets the bomb, Arabs versus Persians versus Sunni vs Shia...." Eeeeeek! Attempt to move the goalposts, ref! I agree that the world is a marginally more dangerous each time another country joins the nuclear club, invited or uninvited. You still have to show that Iran, or some other country of your choice, is suicidally insane. You have still not even attempted to do so, in spite of repeated invitations. "Iran a known terror state gives the bomb or sort of gives a bomb to some stateless entity who cares less what countries get bombed." And they would give away an exceedingly valuable, dangerous asset to an organization which could easily turn on them for what reason? They would have to be suicidally insane to do such a thing. This would be totally different than giving them money or conventional weapons. "We cannot prove Iran or radical elements in Iran gave the information away so who do we bomb back?" If you think that would stop us, you are less familiar with our history than are the Iranians. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Ok at least we have defined the issue here. You believe Iran getting the bomb will not result in mass USA deaths. I hope and pray you are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.