Reply With Quote
Nah, that was just a simple declaration. You aren't good at this.
Relax, you are melting down. Get some sleep.
Nah, that was just a simple declaration. You aren't good at this.
Nah, you are upset, again. Chill baby. It's all good. You are not good at hiding your emotions. It's written all over your post.
Nah. As I said, you aren't good at this.
I can't help but notice you aren't answering the question either.
Considering the implications, I can't say I'm surprised.
I hope you get your questions answered. LATER
Disingenuous.
Certainly you won't answer.
divide and conquer. we already have control of two of their borders. itd turn two wars into one big, maybe more easily managed, war.
Last edited by The Reckoning; 04-19-2010 at 11:55 PM. Reason: grammar
We must liberate these people from their lives! For freedom!
The underlying desire for nations to have nuclear weapons is defensive. Mutually assured destruction has been the basis for arms buildups for the last 50 or so years; along with conflict-spiral model of escalation in armed conflicts. The whole point of acquiring nuclear weapons within a conflict context is to break the conflict-spiral paradigm.
Which means that relations with Iran, as the General rightly pointed out, are incredibly dicey. On the one hand, you need to figure out how to remove the need for them to actively pursue acquiring a nuclear weapon. The underlying flaw in the M.A.D theory is both sides of the conflict being rational participants. Thus, from an American view, can Iran really be counted on to be rational?
However, how do you mollify Iran without compromising your own defensive and offensive posture, to the point of weakening your perceived strength globally? Thus, potentially opening yourself up to increased aggression.
The US best hope likely is to continue to try and peaceably counterattack Iran's pursuit/perceived need for a nuclear weapon, while allowing progressive elements in Iranian society to come to the fore. Then, the US must hope that the progressive elements are amenable to promising a non-nuclear Iranian state in exchange for some sort of concession package.
That is essentially, the best case scenario. Which probably won't happen, but one can hope.
Which is nigh impossible. Even if we were to assure the country that we would protect them, I still don't see how it wouldn't be beneficial to own the nukes yourself. Unless a country has their OWN nukes, they can't truly be independent.Which means that relations with Iran, as the General rightly pointed out, are incredibly dicey. On the one hand, you need to figure out how to remove the need for them to actively pursue acquiring a nuclear weapon.
I believe Iran would act rationally. The biggest concern is whether their security would be up to snuff, in my mind.Thus, from an American view, can Iran really be counted on to be rational?
In this case, that's true.
But, for example in the case of Japan, Germany and so forth, while they possess the capability they are shielded under another nuclear power's umbrella and seem to be happy with that status. If it were beneficial for all nations to possess nuclear weapons, they would. Within the context of developed nations, having nuclear weapons is not a necessity for external defense; as long as there is an umbrella.
With regards to Iran, they are driven to have a nuclear weapons for defense purposes. I think the US is trying to figure out inducements, not necessarily extension of an umbrella since this could quite possibly interfere with pre-existing mutual defense pacts and create additional foreign relations issues, to keep Iran from actively pursuing nuclear weapons. I do not think the US will be successful. But, I think that is what they are trying to do.
My reading is the US is concerned with their potential/future rationality. They still buy into the theory of rogue states. Which, within a context of nuclear non-proliferation and so forth, you could argue they are.I believe Iran would act rationally. The biggest concern is whether their security would be up to snuff, in my mind.
I agree completely with you in terms of security; they are likely envisioning a post-USSR problem. But more, I think in the here and now they are concerned with a radical nuclear equipped Iranian government and the subsequent arms spiral in the region.
As I said earlier, the purpose of possessing nuclear weapons is to create a ceiling on conflict-spirals. Just look at Pakistan and India. I think the US and other nations fear that M.A.D would not be a deterrent in a Middle East conflict spiral if all possessed nuclear weapons.
To restate, I agree with the CJCS. The only real option open to the US at the moment is a diplomatic solution.
This is a good point. TBH, I'm surprised any country without nukes considers that acceptable.But, for example in the case of Japan, Germany and so forth, while they possess the capability they are shielded under another nuclear power's umbrella and seem to be happy with that status. If it were beneficial for all nations to possess nuclear weapons, they would. Within the context of developed nations, having nuclear weapons is not a necessity for external defense; as long as there is an umbrella.
Still, I can't foresee a future where Iran is willing to acquiesce, BEFORE they develop nuke capability. I could be wrong, of course... who would've thought Japan would be a strong ally merely a few decades after Pearl Harbor?
I can understand your concern that Iran may not be rational, ie. willing to submit to the M.A.D. theory. It's hard to say. I would argue that not even Achmanijehad (however you spell it) is sane neough to recognize that any nuclear strike would welcome immediate and devastating retaliation. I don't know how much I'd be willing to gamble on that, though.
Normally one would put ahere because this is the most incredibly stupid thing anyone has said in these forums that I can ever recall.
But butchering millions of people, and horribly disfiguring hundreds of thousands more is not really a laughing matter.
Seriously, that is the stupidist ing thing I have ever heard on the internet, and that is saying something when you have people claiming to have seen the elder Bush "morph into a reptile".
That is a common misconception. He actually said that "history will erase Israel from the map.
Don't take my word for it. Look it up.
The phrase was mistranslated. The full and better translation can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...22_translation
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Subtle, yet vastly different from the way it is normally portrayed as.So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel"
The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)..[12][13]
The phrase's intended meaning by the speaker was to essentially deny the legitimacy of Israel's existence, not to call for or propose a military strike to obliterate the physical existance of Israel.
To be clear:
Amedinidork is an idiot. He is an uneducated, overly religious theocrat, who very explicitly denies the holocaust, and believes in a host of rather bizarre and illogical things.
But this is not one of those cases.
He says enough real stupid to prove him an idiot, and unstable.
BUT
When people like you parrot this mistranslation, you play right into his hands by providing evidence that his enemies will "make up any lie" to discredit him.
Please stop helping him.
I think their track record would indicate that. So yes.
You do know that the shia consider Al Qaeda to be apostates, and vice versa, correct?
The ultimate origin of any such weapon used would be undeniably determined by analysing the specific isotopic signature of the bomb, whether it was a full out nuke, or just a dirty bomb.
Anybody with nukes would know this, and would know that the US and the international community would be outright forced to do some pretty dramatic .
There is some possibility, yes, but it is far from a certainty that anybody in power is realistically that stupid or crazy.
By your logic, we should have already nuked Pakistan.
So, the Chairman is actually saying, "Damned if we do, damned if we don't."NEW YORK CITY — We are all screwed if Iran gets a nuke. And we may be just as screwed if the United States attacks Iran to keep Tehran from getting that nuke.
Okay, I’m paraphrasing a bit. But that’s the core of the message from America’s top military officer, who reiterated today his canyon-deep reservations about any military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.
If it were me, I'd choose doing. It's what my favorite Democrat, Give 'em Harry Truman chose. And, history has acquitted him quite nicely; Jon Stewart calling him a war criminal, notwithstanding, of course.
Last edited by Yonivore; 04-21-2010 at 12:42 PM.
What do you propose we do?
Pre-emptive attacks sacrifice a lot of moral authority, and that has some rather serious repercussions, as we found out under the last president.
Fail.
Truman didn't attack or nuke The USSR or China while they were successfully developing nuclear weapons.
Here's the big reason why we should wait... there's a good chance that Iran would use their first nuke on Israel, instead of America. Then we can blast them without being hurt at all!
However, if we nuke them first, we look like the bad guys, and we IMMEDIATELY make every country even slightly against us work 10,000X harder to get a nuke.
And as far as superpowers... how do you think Russia and China would react if we nuked Iran? It'd be just the thing they need to try to slam us economically, and most of Europe would be obliged to go along.
Then, of course, there's the moral argument... you know, hundreds of thousands of innocents killed. Not sure if that sways you though.
I like it! It's just hard waiting. 2 wars is good but 3 is a charm.
Newsweek just posted an interesting quote on their blog:
"The needed successor to MAD is, therefore, nuclear forensics and attribution: the science of inferring the source of nuclear materials from their chemical and isotopic properties. “If we could pinpoint the origin of nuclear material used in a terrorist attack, it would deter countries from allowing poor security at their nuclear facilities,” says Benn Tannenbaum of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). More bluntly, if hostile regimes perceive that the U.S. has an effective nuclear attribution capability, they might be deterred from helping terrorists obtain nuclear materials. (At least 40 countries have enough highly enriched uranium to build a crude atomic weapon, and 13 have enough reactor-grade plutonium.)"
The call then is for the creation, or investment of, policing type powers with a certain group. In this case, it is then an extension of the MAD principle.
This, as RandomGuy and LG, could be an effective inducement for increased nuclear security in developing nations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions