| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Should Iran Get Nukes? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 6 2006, 02:38 PM (620 Views) | |
| George K | Sep 6 2006, 02:38 PM Post #1 |
|
Finally
|
Just thinking about it. Iran is a sovereign nation. It has clear nuclear ambitions, and has said it is its right to have these weapons. How do they differ from other countries that have nukes, such as Pakistan, India, (presumably) Israel, France and Russia? Why should they bow to the UN on this? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Sep 6 2006, 02:44 PM Post #2 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Three descriptors: theocratic Islamic Republic. |
![]() |
|
| George K | Sep 6 2006, 02:47 PM Post #3 |
|
Finally
|
AC, I completely agree with you, but, I'm trying to see the other side's point of view (really!). How do they differ from a country like Pakistan, which also has heavy Islamic influence? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Sep 6 2006, 02:52 PM Post #4 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Has Pakistan made a priority of the destruction of another state? How about France? Not Germany for quite a while. Britain? Nope. US? Nahh.. Russia has not nuked Chechnya, which shows remarkable restraint, IMO. No, I don't think Iran can join the club. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Sep 6 2006, 03:15 PM Post #5 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
The short answer for me is that if they don't, the eventual outcome will be at the very least the bombing of their nuclear facilities and probably a much larger set of hostilities. Why Iran and not Pakistan? Iran has threatened the very existence of one of our allies, and shows every indication of carrying out their threat if given the chance. This must not be allowed to happen, and we can only hope that skilled negotiations will lead to a satisfactory arrangement without bloodshed. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| kluurs | Sep 6 2006, 03:38 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Iran was once seen much like Israel, America's best friend in the area in the days of the Shah. That situation changed. Things can change in Pakistan in which case the Islamic "bomb" could end up elsewhere. Our "friend" Saudi Arabia supplied 15 of the hijackers for 9/11. The situation there could change as well - and not for the better. At some point the nuclear genie will be out of the bottle. There are just too many nukes already - that can be find their way to the wrong hands - let alone Iran's efforts to develop their own. With the Soviets, mutually assured destruction kept the genie somewhat under control. With people who believe martyrdom serves a noble purpose, such a stalemate may not be achievable. One nuke used anywhere will change the dynamics of how the world views everything. We may very well be on the edge of something that a few years ago would have been unthinkable. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Sep 6 2006, 03:45 PM Post #7 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Interesting comparison to Germany. While Iran threatened to destroy Israel, Germany has actually tried to eliminate all Jews! My answer is simple: Any organization that is not friendly to the US should not be allowed any WMD. Is Iran friendly to the US? -- NO Is nuke a WMD? -- YES Then Iran should not get any nuke. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Sep 6 2006, 03:48 PM Post #8 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Yes, and one would think the lesson of Dresden would not be lost on Teheran. We can still do that, just a lot faster. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Sep 6 2006, 05:47 PM Post #9 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
The best reason is the long standing and intelligent world policy against nuclear proliferation, which is important because the more that smaller and the more that unstable countries have them, the more likely they are to be used. Both Pakistan and India developed theirs and were roundly denounced by the world community -- even as the world knew it could do little to nothing about it. And , of course, it was the Pakistni general (I think he was a general) who sold nuclear matirials and equipment all over the globe -- including Iran and North Korea and God only knows where else. The guy is not living under "house arrest" in a very nice estate in Pakistan. Unfortunately, when Bush was in India, he agreed to a treaty with India to help them develop their nuclear weapons program, which went against the existing non-proliferation treaty because India is not a signatory and Buish diod not require them to become one as part of the deal. But this gives the clear indication the US is OK with the proliferation of nuclear weapons (the first time this has been done since we ratified the non-proliferation treaty), or at least is willing to turn its head and wink at countries developing their own if it is to our economic benefit. Makes it kind of hypocritical for him to be cmplaining about Iran. Fortunately, even the GOP in the Senate understand the international ramifications of the agreement with India and have indicated they are not likely to approve it. (I gues sit muist have been a treaty if Sdenate approval is required). |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Sep 6 2006, 05:54 PM Post #10 |
|
Finally
|
However, that did not stop their progress or dhimminish their desires for nukes. Do you think that world-wide condemnation would affect Iran? I don't.
[Zimmermode] I KNEW it wouldn't be long before someone jumped in to bash the current administration [/Zimmermode] Rick, I'm not curious about the successes or failures of this, or any other American administration. I'm asking, from a philosophical standpoint, why shouldn't Iran have nukes. Seems to me, that in their own eyes, the Iranians are as justified as the Indians, Pakistanis, Koreans and others.
Intelligent or not, it certainly has not been effective - as the three nations I mentioned above indicate. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Sep 6 2006, 05:57 PM Post #11 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Well Pakistan already has nukes. Can't disinvent them once they are there. So far the G'ovt has been of the authoritarian secular type. Although, I am of the opinion that Pakistan shouldn't have them either owing to its history of instability, the country is pretty in a state of nuclear deterrence with its neighbour, India. A situation not unlike the US and USSR during the Cold War. |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Sep 6 2006, 06:13 PM Post #12 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
There is a material difference between Iran and all the other nations that have nukes. The cold war remained COLD because neither side wanted to perish. they wanted to win, but without anihilation as a cost. Many radical Islamic goups have embraced suicide as a means to their ends and they seem to be indoctrinating their people and children to accept death as a means to salvation (not to mention all those virgins). Historically, the ability to deploy nukes has brought with it a sobering respect for restraint among those who have them. I am not convinced that Iran will follow that path. At the same time, i view any action to bomb their facilitites as very short sighted and ultimately doomed to fail. jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Sep 6 2006, 06:30 PM Post #13 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Is it possible that the further development of India's nuclear weapons program is a hedge against the inherent risk of Pakistan? In other words, could there POSSIBLY be in any detractor's viewwpoint, a positive strategy in any of this? |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Sep 6 2006, 07:07 PM Post #14 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Should negotiations fail, what is the alternative? |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Sep 6 2006, 07:31 PM Post #15 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Why waste a nuke when traditional use of overwhelming force is more than sufficient. It is hardly restraint on Moscow's part. Besides, nuclear weapons are meant for foreign enemies not internal. |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 6 2006, 07:34 PM Post #16 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Russia has already nuked Chernobyl and doesn't want to go through that again. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Sep 6 2006, 07:46 PM Post #17 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
As well as Orenburg in the early 60's before atmospheric tests were banned and a huge oil and gas field near Novy Uregoi in Western Siberia in the 1970's. In the case of the latter it was thought that an underground nuclear explosion would assist the production of the field. The blast did the opposite- it rendered the hydrocarbon desposits into carbon. Glow in the dark pencil leads anyone? |
![]() |
|
| iainhp | Sep 6 2006, 08:13 PM Post #18 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Hah - I had a different thought when I read "Should Iran get nukes" - courtesy of an ICBM? :rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Sep 6 2006, 08:25 PM Post #19 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The answer to that question is obvious. The more telling question is "How will we know when negotiation has failed?", or put another way, "How long must negotiations be attempted before their failure is conceded?" Just as there are some who have no use for any attempt at negotiations, there are at least as many who will never agree to military action, on the grounds that "we just didn't give diplomacy enough of a chance; we rushed to a military option!" |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Sep 6 2006, 08:30 PM Post #20 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
What sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Sep 6 2006, 09:00 PM Post #21 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Unconditional surrender, Rick. Unconditional surrender. |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Sep 7 2006, 02:52 AM Post #22 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That line of thinking doesn't really work, since friends today are often enemies tomorrow. |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| bachophile | Sep 7 2006, 03:01 AM Post #23 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
haaretz article on this very subject... Let them have nukes By Reuven Pedatzur For the more than four decades of Cold War, the human race was not destroyed due to mutual deterrence between the two superpowers. The strategic stability was based on a balance of fear and on what was called MAD - mutual assured destruction. It was clear to both sides that even if one managed to surprise its rival and strike it with all the nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the victim would still have enough bombs to wreak total destruction on the attacker. The theory of nuclear deterrence, which was developed mainly by American academics, underwent quite a few changes from the mid-1940s until MAD was formulated in the mid-1960s, mainly by then-U.S. secretary of defense Robert McNamara. However, from the moment McNamara convinced the Soviet leadership that the willingness of both sides to expose themselves to total destruction was the only way to achieve stability, this viewpoint became the bedrock of nuclear deterrence - and the principle that ensured the survival of the world. The addition of other countries to the nuclear club did not lead to a change in the theory. Britain, France and China did not challenge this viewpoint, and it was clear that fear of total destruction by the Soviet Union (in the case of Britain and France) or by the United States (in the case of China) deterred them from using nuclear weapons. The nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan in May 1998 gave rise to a fear that the theory would fail. There was talk about the two countries' cultural differences, the religious element of the conflict and the extremism of the Pakistanis. And in fact a year later the Kargil crisis erupted between India and Pakistan, and threatened to lead to war. As it turned out, it was actually the two countries' nuclear capabilities that caused their leaders to exercise restraint. The fear that the crisis would deteriorate into nuclear war prevented an escalation. This belief that nuclear weapons were the ultimate deterrent also led David Ben-Gurion to become the architect of the Israeli nuclear program. Even the most radical Arab leaders who aspired to destroy Israel would be deterred if they knew it possessed nuclear weapons. The lessons of the Cold War only confirmed Ben-Gurion's thesis, and made it clear that at the moment of truth, Israel's nuclear capability would deter anyone aspiring to destroy the country. Good against evil And now comes Prof. Bernard Lewis, one of the world's foremost authorities on the Middle East, who rejects this thesis' validity for the region. What was true during the Cold War does not apply to Iran, says Lewis. "There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons," wrote Lewis in The Wall Street Journal on August 8. "This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples ... School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom." He concludes that if Iran has nuclear weapons, its leaders will not adopt the restrictions accepted by the heads of the other nuclear states. There is great concern, he writes, that after arming themselves with nuclear bombs, the ayatollahs will launch them at Israel. "A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines." Lewis discusses two possible deterrent factors against Iranian use of nuclear weapons: "The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel." In referring to the certainty that the destruction of Israel would also result in the deaths of millions of Palestinians, Lewis uses the example of Al-Qaida's 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks killed a few American diplomats and hundreds of Muslims. Lewis writes: "Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims." "The second deterrent - the threat of direct retaliation on Iran - is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today .... This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision ... for Shi'ite Muslims [this means] the long-awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced," writes Lewis. "In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead - hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement." A rational leadership This is Lewis' apocalyptic theory. Frightening, but not necessarily valid. Lewis' thesis is based on generalizations and projections - from individual cases of suicide bombers to the national level - and it ignores our historical experience regarding the behavior of the Iranian leadership in previous conflicts. Up until a few years ago, Lewis' theories were accepted as valid and as a basis for American policy in the Middle East. However, after he "abandoned academic caution" following September 11, in the words of his critics, his opinions have become very controversial among Middle East scholars. Lewis was one of the first to pressure the U.S. administration into embarking on a post-September 11 armed conflict against Saddam Hussein. Lewis was also an important player in the theory that after the war, it would be possible to establish a democratic regime in Iraq. Without getting into the debates between Lewis and his critics, it is clear his view and analysis of our region largely suffers from obsolete thinking. In light of that we should examine the thesis of the Iranian apocalypse. Lewis states that just as Muslim terrorists were willing to strike Western targets even though they knew many Muslims would be killed, the Iranian leaders would not hesitate to strike at Israel and kill millions of Muslims. That is a projection from the individual to the national level, and is not necessarily valid. What a single suicide bomber is willing to do does not prove anything about the decisions of a national leadership. Past experience shows that the radical Iranian regime, headed by the most extreme of them all, Ayatollah Khomeini, behaved with absolute rationality at the moment of truth. That was the case during the Iran-Iraq war. Khomeini declared he would never sign a cease-fire agreement with Iraq until it surrendered. However, after dozens of Iraqi missiles began striking Tehran and thousands of residents were harmed, Khomeini changed his position and signed a cease-fire agreement with Saddam Hussein. In that case, the missiles were conventional. It is almost certain that when the threat of Israeli reprisal involves nuclear missiles, the Iranian leaders will refrain from using nuclear weapons. There is no Iranian national interest that could justify the country's total destruction. Lewis' claim, that the destruction of Iran could be justified by an apocalyptic worldview, does not accord completely with the assumption that the Iranians, in spite of being Muslims, are not fundamentally different from other people in the world. We can assume that as opposed to Lewis' assertions, it is possible to build a stable system of future nuclear deterrence between Israel and Iran. This will of course require changes in Israel's nuclear policy and a transition to open nuclear deterrence. In addition, Israel will have to build a reliable second-strike capability, which has to a great extent been completed with the acquisition of the Dolphin submarine. Mutual deterrence will be based on new rules of the game, with Israel making its red lines clear to Iran. For example, Iran will be made aware that the moment a missile is detected heading westward from its territory, the Israeli nuclear response will be automatically activated - without waiting for the missile to land, and without examining whether it is nuclear. Moreover, it will be clear to Iran that even if it were to surprise Israel and strike it without being detected in advance, Israel would still have enough nuclear missiles to destroy all of Iran. |
| "I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Sep 7 2006, 03:04 AM Post #24 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Note that Germany does deliberately not have any nukes because it does not want to scare its former enemies. Saying "Any organization that is not friendly to the US should not be allowed any WMD" is like saying to your neighbor "I don't grant you this or that right because I don't like you". Just us a thought experiment, assume for a second that the US would get, for whatever reason, a Nazi-like government in the next years. Do you think your principle should still hold, or would you expect the democratic nations to fight against this new hypothetical regime? Like in jurisdiction, one needs general and verifiable principles that can be used to judge whether a state is allowed to do something. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Phlebas | Sep 7 2006, 03:16 AM Post #25 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I thought "non-proliferation" meant we don't want anyone else to get nukes, and if another country gets nukes the world is less safe. Aside from that, Iran is a definate no-no. They should never get nukes. I don't believe we the US can pick and choose and say "if you're my ally/friend/etc., you can have nukes." The US has had some interesting "friends" in the past (Saddam Hussein, anyone??).
|
|
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2












12:56 AM Jul 11