AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-11-09, 22:03   Link #1
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Nuclear Power and Foreign Policy (Iran, North Korea, and others)

One of the issues that's likely to become only more pressing with time is that of who is allowed to possess nuclear technology. Sanctions are levied by the international community (most, if not all, of whom already possess nuclear technology) against other countries attempting to obtain nuclear technology, regardless of the reason that nuclear technology is desired.

The primary argument against nuclear proliferation is over the fear that nuclear technology will find its way into weapons. Nuclear weaponry is more destructive than conventional ballistic weaponry, and the potential destruction that could be caused is immense. In order to prevent nations deemed unstable or untrustworthy from acquiring nuclear technology, the international community imposes sanctions against those who seek it and attempts to lightly subsidize the needs of those who do not attempt to acquire it.

I do not find the current situation to be maintainable. As society progresses its need for energy grows. Older power generation technologies are being decried as environmentally unfriendly. In many ways, nuclear power is the answer. To prevent other countries from obtaining nuclear technology for energy needs is extremely disabling to the growth of those countries. Rather than imposing a blanket ban on the technology, it seems that a better diplomacy move would be to offer to provide those countries with nuclear technology and work closely with them to ensure that it is only used for energy. Ideally an impartial third party organization goverened by international oversight would be set up for this task.

As it stands, I believe that desperation will ultimately lead most nations to obtain nuclear technology, regardless of sanctions imposed against them.

There are a number of other arguments that I have in mind favoring the somewhat controlled spread of the technology, but I'd like to inquire how others feel about the issue. What are good reasons for and against the spread or ban of nuclear technology to those countries that do not already possess it?
__________________
Ledgem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-09, 22:55   Link #2
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-09, 23:06   Link #3
mg1942
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
and they've had 'em for 30 years.

thing is, Israel is the other side of the equation... they ain't talking about erasing Iran.. they'll just do it if Iran even LOOKS like they're close... *POOF*

Meanwhile we got twits trying to make a case for Iran building a nuke pile while they're sitting on oil supplies, they only need to build non threatening oil refineries for to utilize all that oil for literally dirt cheap 'energy'. It's like a 9 year old kid that can't be trusted to not loose the TV remote making a 'case' on why he/she should get a new cell phone.

Last edited by mg1942; 2008-11-10 at 03:01.
mg1942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 08:41   Link #4
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg1942 View Post
Meanwhile we got twits trying to make a case for Iran building a nuke pile while they're sitting on oil supplies, they only need to build non threatening oil refineries for to utilize all that oil for literally dirt cheap 'energy'. It's like a 9 year old kid that can't be trusted to not loose the TV remote making a 'case' on why he/she should get a new cell phone.
Oil supplies that, in 50 years at most, will be unable to meet their current energy demands, let alone what those demands will be then. Is it any wonder that Iran, an oil exporter who would know all too well that it's easily accessable oil deposits are being depleted, is going to want to use something else for power? Also, the less oil Iran uses for domestic consumption, the more there is for export.

Maybe people should stop and think here. Is Iran's nuclear program a cover for weapons development? Perhaps, though having nuclear weapons would actually put Iran in a weaker position as simply having them invites an Israeli first strike, and they can't strike at Israel without destroying the third holiest city in islam. So why else would they want nuclear power? Could it be that they don't see their oil supplies as being sufficient for long term use?
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 09:12   Link #5
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Let's look at facts.
Fact; whether it be nuclear weaponry OR nuclear energy, uranium needs to be refined and can not be distinguished without evaluating finished product.
Fact; Iran have been stating from the beginning that IAEA can have as many inspections as they wish.
Fact; Iran's main source of foreign income is OIL and would rather sell it at high value then to spend it domestically knowing it is a limited source.
Fact; Iran has NOTHING to gain by attacking Israel
Fact; Iran created an oil market that does not limit transaction currency to US dollar which is the FIRST of it's kind.
Fact; The US have been eyeing Iran as an obstacle (like Cuba) within ME diplomacy ever since the Iran revolution overthrowing the US puppet Pakravan regime.
Fact; Iran is a minority within the Muslim state being Shia Islam.
The answer is in front of you if you really try to understand.
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 10:26   Link #6
shelter
Every word must conjure
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: City of No Yesterdays
Send a message via MSN to shelter
It seems the direction of this thread thus far seems to concern Iran. All 4 posts seem to point out what I was planning to say: that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty serves a chiefly political function - and "non-proliferation" is defined by certain powerful states over lesser ones.

Although I might make an exception to N. Korea. For one thing, I'm a bit surprised that The Bush Administration has actually softened its stance on North Korea (despite North Koreans' belligerence) and has come down even harsher on Iran (who hasn't been making much noise).

So I openly wonder: who exactly defines the management & regulation of nuclear technology?

And looks like there might be a new state which will go nuclear soon - with some unusual reactions.

Quote:
Indonesia’s Eco-jihad?
November 4, 2008 (Tuesday)


FROM: TodayOnline (Singapore)

EXPECT a “confrontation” between the state and lay Muslims if Jakarta moves ahead with its nuclearisation plans without securing the consent of the national council of Islamic clerics, one of Indonesia’s leading environmental activists warned recently.

Indonesia plans to build its first nuclear power plant in the earthquake-prone region of Jepara in central Java by 2010.

“If the Majlis Ugama Indonesia (MUI) does not give the green light for this project, the people may take up the cause of eco-jihad to the streets,” said Mr Fachruddin M Mangunjaya of Conservation International Indonesia. He spoke to Today recently, on the sidelines of a seminar on Islam and conservation in Indonesia held at the University of Edinburgh. The prospect of “eco-jihad” had been raised earlier by a member of the audience.
It'll be interesting to see how the international community will handle this one, considering the implications involved.
shelter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 11:16   Link #7
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
As difficult as it was to live with, deterrence kept the US and USSR from using nuclear weapons for nearly half a century. We've not seen a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, nor between either of those states and China, despite decades of conflict. So far military and civilian leaders appear to believe that using a nuclear weapon against a similarly-armed state is not a recipe for success on the battlefield.

The bigger problem is, of course, the growing access to high technology across the globe. To use a overworked cliche, "the nuclear genie is out of the bottle" and will never be put back. Policies based on attempting to discourage non-nuclear states from acquiring nuclear technologies seem to me to be doomed to failure. Look how well we've done with North Korea. Nor are we in a moral position to tell other nations to remain non-nuclear. The fact that we did not substantially reduce our inventory of deliverable warheads after the fall of Communism was, to me, the biggest single failure of the Clinton Administration.

Back in the seventies, one of my colleagues who taught international relations argued that the United States's best approach to nuclear proliferation was to enter into treaties with potential target nations that promised nuclear reprisals against states that used nuclear weapons against the allied target. At the time that seemed a horrifying idea to me, but over the years it makes more and more sense. Why should Iran need to fear an Israeli nuclear attack? Why not offer the Iranians (or anyone else) a guarantee that should they be attacked by a nuclear weapon the US, in concert with its allies, would retaliate against the attacker?

Obviously this approach only works if we know who the attacker is. When nuclear devices had to be delivered by bombers or missiles that was a reasonable approach. In a world where "suitcase nukes" are a real possibility, finding the attacker may not be so easy. That's why I'd still support the current international regime that tracks and manages things like fissile material and enrichment technologies. But I'd still make deterrence a significant part of any effort to thwart a nuclear war.

Tactical nuclear weapons are a whole other ball game. I don't find many compelling arguments for them militarily because of the "collateral damage" they'd inevitably spread across the globe. I also think missile defense is an extremely complicated issue. While we'd all love to be able to be made safer by technology, ABM systems are also fundamentally destabilizing in a world of offensive weapons. The Soviets feared that an effective American missile defense system would inevitably make it easier to launch a first strike attack against the USSR. "Mutual assured destruction," as crazy a notion as it seems, kept the world safe for a very long time. Once the "assured" part comes into question, the pressures for gaining the upper-hand against a nuclear-armed opponent become much stronger.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 11:32   Link #8
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post
Why not offer the Iranians (or anyone else) a guarantee that should they be attacked by a nuclear weapon the US, in concert with its allies, would retaliate against the attacker?
The problem here is we could then be put in a position to have to act against an ally or have our bluff called and lose any deterrence effect. I agree that an allied nation should be under our nuclear umbrella, however, including any nation in that would be a disaster waiting to happen.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 11:40   Link #9
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
http://voanews.com/english/2008-11-10-voa17.cfm

Before the US complain other other nation's nuclear foreign policy, they should first look at themselves. When it comes to American foreign policy regarding nuclear power, shouldn't it include the trust and respect of allies? Once again, a US nuclear vehicle upsets a US ally.

If the US miscommunicates with allies and causes tension within bilateral relations, what happens if the US miscommunicates with countries like Iran and North Korea, will it start a nuclear war?
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 12:40   Link #10
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 22
Part of the danger of giving nuclear power to other countries is not necessarily the countries themselves, but the terrorists within those countries.
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 13:25   Link #11
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
Part of the danger of giving nuclear power to other countries is not necessarily the countries themselves, but the terrorists within those countries.
I can't help but feel that the Iranian government (or the Religious leaders, in this case), as well as a few others in that region, desperatly want to show the world that they are not as bad as America and Israel have portrayed them. Consequently, the governments would go out of their way to protect the nuclear facilities and the subsequent waste. So, terrorists do not seem like a legitimate threat in regards to the decision to support or deny the emerging nuclear infrastructure in Iran and various other nations. Now if the region was in the midst of a civil war, I would probably agree with you, but Iran is fairly stable, and most importantly, they want to be on the same stage as the "Big" nations via peaceful methods (peaceful thus far, but if AAmerica keeps jerking them around...), not just terror and destruction.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 13:34   Link #12
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mucking about
Age: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
The problem here is we could then be put in a position to have to act against an ally or have our bluff called and lose any deterrence effect. I agree that an allied nation should be under our nuclear umbrella, however, including any nation in that would be a disaster waiting to happen.
I'd assume we'd get something in return for any nuclear guarantees; I'm not proposing a one-way street here.

I'll just add that I consider America's unwavering support of Israel's policies since the 1967 war to be one of the major obstacles to any resolution of the situation in the Middle and Near East. Even if we accept the premise that Israel is an "ally" (a relationship not established by any formal treaty), that doesn't mean I think we should simply sit back and say it's okay for them to use a nuclear device against a third party. Unless you're willing to accept the "axis of evil" interpretation about Iran, I'd suggest re-reading the list of items that Tri-ring presented.

With the sole exception of Israel, where our foreign policy has been overt and essentially consistent for decades, the US has generally carried forward the type of duplicitous behavior in the Middle East that we associate with British and French imperialism. Remember that we've chosen to support both Saddam Hussein (directly) and Osama bin Laden (indirectly via CIA ties with Pakistan's ISI and with the help of the Saudis) when we thought it was to our advantage. In 1953 we engineered the coup that restored the Iranian monarchy when American and British decision-makers feared the Mossadegh government would nationalize Iran's oil fields. Oil is a dirty substance, and it tends to stain everyone and everything it touches. Our hands are not clean in any of these countries, and the people that live in those nations know that much better than we Americans do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
Part of the danger of giving nuclear power to other countries is not necessarily the countries themselves, but the terrorists within those countries.
I'm afraid it's a bit late for that. Nuclear materials have been floating around in the world since at least the fall of the Soviet Union. Added to that is the well-known distribution of nuclear materials and technology by the Pakistani weapons developer, A. Q. Khan. The North Korean and Libyan weapons programs both took advatage of Khan's largess. One bright spot that's not mentioned often enough is Muammar Qaddafi's decision to renounce nuclear weapons development. I'd be greatly surprised if terrorists don't already have access to nuclear technologies, but whether they can yet develop effective delivery systems is an open question.

Back in the 1980's when the nuclear "freeze" movement was at its height, a friend asked me if I thought I'd ever see a nuclear device detonated in my lifetime. I replied that I thought I would, but not as the consequence of an inter-state war. I believed then, and still believe today, that nuclear terrorism poses a much greater threat. If we could determine some method for deterring nuclear terrorism as effective as the methods we devised to deter nuclear war, the world would be a much safer place. Unfortunately it's a lot harder to deter non-state actors who often have little to lose and much to gain.
__________________

Last edited by SeijiSensei; 2008-11-10 at 13:52.
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 13:41   Link #13
-KarumA-
(。☉౪ ⊙。)
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In Maya world, where all is 3D and everything crashes
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
Part of the danger of giving nuclear power to other countries is not necessarily the countries themselves, but the terrorists within those countries.
not just terrorist, here it is known that every couple of years nuclear waste that is highly dangerous gets transported from France to Germany, part by train and part by truck. However I heard on the news today, though it isn't anything unfamiliar that once again people were protesting against it by boycotting the transport, it has at leased been delayed for 3 hours now but to boycott a nuclear waste transport goes a little too far if it were normal protesting yes but with this a lot of people were arrested and it is more likely that they are to cause an accident that can lead to a disaster than the transport itself can crash into something. I was partly afraid that those people would cause an accident that could lead to something life-threatening (before blaming it on the government because it would be their fault though they were the idiots who caused it)
-KarumA- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 14:19   Link #14
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post
I'd assume we'd get something in return for any nuclear guarantees; I'm not proposing a one-way street here.

I'll just add that I consider America's unwavering support of Israel's policies since the 1967 war to be one of the major obstacles to any resolution of the situation in the Middle and Near East. Even if we accept the premise that Israel is an "ally" (a relationship not established by any formal treaty), that doesn't mean I think we should simply sit back and say it's okay for them to use a nuclear device against a third party. Unless you're willing to accept the "axis of evil" interpretation about Iran, I'd suggest re-reading the list of items that Tri-ring presented.
I agree completely on our Israel policy. It's completely counter productive. However, I think you missed my point. Let's say Israel nukes Iran. If we had such a policy we'd then either have to nuke a nation we're more or less allies with, at least in the sense that we've given them a lot of military aid, or do nothing.

If we do nuke them, then we've just shown that it's pointless to have a relationship with us, as we'll blow you off the face of the earth with no second thought regardless. If we do nothing, we're showing that we're a paper tiger and unwilling to honor our treaty obligations. Either case undermines US influence and power, and could potentially trigger an arms build up as nations who thought they were safe under the US nuclear umbrella now find themselves anything but and start scrambling for a deterrence ability of their own.

Even if such a situation doesn't happen, such a policy would be held up as an example of US arrogence and imperialism.

It's one thing to have an unoffical policy like that regarding actual allies. For example, I don't think anyone doubts if North Korea used nuclear weapons on South Korea or Japan that the US would respond. However, if you have it for every nation, you're asking for trouble. Getting away from the Israel-Iran example, what about India and Pakistan? Should the US be committed to launch if one of those countries launches a first strike on the other?
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 14:26   Link #15
Fipskuul
τηε πιγητ ωατςη
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: τηè λαnδ of веагз αnδ дг
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
Fact; Iran has NOTHING to gain by attacking Israel
Iran has a lot to gain actually. Just think about afterwards. If they put the blame on some crazy army personnel and execute them, and ask Europe or US to control that power so that it won't repeat again, they may solve the problem on their side without giving up much. I doubt, any leader of a western country would want to reply in the same manner, even though they may use that as a pressuring device.

That is why, you need to stop that from happening. You cannot take a risk on something like that. It takes a lot of evil courage to pull that trigger, but, we know there are people who would do that without having a second thought, and even with an excuse of following their religious beliefs.

And, if you want everyone to have access to the nuclear power without letting them develop that power themselves, then the solution is simple, even though costly. Build in a friendly nation, and distribute that energy based on an agreement that cannot be void no matter what.
__________________
Fipskuul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 14:35   Link #16
Mumitroll
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Quote:
There are a number of other arguments that I have in mind favoring the somewhat controlled spread of the technology, but I'd like to inquire how others feel about the issue. What are good reasons for and against the spread or ban of nuclear technology to those countries that do not already possess it?
it's all fairly straightforward. the only reason not to spread nuclear technology to country X is if an argument can be made that country X will use it to build nuclear weapons. it's obvious that the countries which already have nuclear weapons do not want any others to obtain them. whether a country can and would use civil nuclear technology in order to build nuclear weapons has to be seen on a case-by-case basis. some are more likely to do it than others. with most of those who are likely to do it, the primary reason is simply self-defense against a potential US invasion.

reasons for spreading it - obvious as well. it's a relatively clean, efficient and major source of energy, far more environmentally friendly than fossile fuels and with a much greater energetic potential than alternative power sources like wind or solar energy.


Quote:
Meanwhile we got twits trying to make a case for Iran building a nuke pile while they're sitting on oil supplies, they only need to build non threatening oil refineries for to utilize all that oil for literally dirt cheap 'energy'. It's like a 9 year old kid that can't be trusted to not loose the TV remote making a 'case' on why he/she should get a new cell phone.
for Iran it is simply a matter of having a deterrent against a US invasion. it's got nothing to do with energy or attacking the US or Israel (even as they may say otherwise) - as you say, in the short- to middle-term Iran can live on its oil, and any nuclear attack against US or Israel would be completely suicidal - which they are not.


Quote:
The fact that we did not substantially reduce our inventory of deliverable warheads after the fall of Communism was, to me, the biggest single failure of the Clinton Administration.
why "failure"? it was deliberate policy. while the USSR implemented SALT and START treaties fully and disarmed substantially, drastically reducing its military budget till the 2000s, the US largely continued to increase its military spending. it is by now in absolute terms by far the most overmilitarized state on Earth, akin to the 3rd Reich prior to WWII. why? simple - military power is the most straightforward method to geopolitical control.


Quote:
Why not offer the Iranians (or anyone else) a guarantee that should they be attacked by a nuclear weapon the US, in concert with its allies, would retaliate against the attacker?
that's nonsensical. the single reason that Iran needs nuclear weapons is to deter the US or Israel (which is politically the US' 51st state) from attacking it.


Quote:
While we'd all love to be able to be made safer by technology, ABM systems are also fundamentally destabilizing in a world of offensive weapons.
ABM systems do not make you safer at all. it's a complete illusion. if you read contemporary military literature, the overwhelming consensus is that missile-based ABM simply does not work against modern BMs with MIRVs, randomly changing trajectories, etc. the main reasoning behind the US ABM programs, as you correctly said, is that it is a first-strike weapon against Russia and potentially China, and thus a method of political pressure. i.e., if the US launches a massive nuclear (or cruise missile) first strike against Russian/Chinese BM launch sites, the ABM in Poland, Norway, sea-borne Aegis ABM and late stage defense would be - maybe - sufficient to intercept the remaining missiles launched in the counterstrike (probably not, but the logic is that if, say, 10 warheads get through, the US will still exist afterwards).

the rest of it - orbital and airborne lasers, EMP, etc - is more science-fiction than reality. it has partially been built and tested, but in the next 50 or so years will probably still remain completely useless against a serious nuclear BM strike.


Quote:
I'll just add that I consider America's unwavering support of Israel's policies since the 1967 war to be one of the major obstacles to any resolution of the situation in the Middle and Near East.
i think so too.


Quote:
Even if we accept the premise that Israel is an "ally" (a relationship not established by any formal treaty), that doesn't mean I think we should simply sit back and say it's okay for them to use a nuclear device against a third party. Unless you're willing to accept the "axis of evil" interpretation about Iran, I'd suggest re-reading the list of items that Tri-ring presented.
Israel is not even an ally. it's more like a part of the US politically. it would take a while to explain why, but basically it's enough to look at the following fact: 13+% of Senate/Congress are simply Jewish (or at least were before the elections, i dont exactly know what the distribution is now), and a further ~40% have Jewish ties or are influenced by organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (for example Jimmy Carter once said it was puttting "enormous pressure" on senators and congressmen to make their policies Israel-friendly).


Quote:
Our hands are not clean in any of these countries, and the people that live in those nations know that much better than we Americans do.
exactly.


Quote:
I'd be greatly surprised if terrorists don't already have access to nuclear technologies, but whether they can yet develop effective delivery systems is an open question.
having access to fissile materials, making a functioning bomb, and having a missile capable of reaching the US (or even Israel - which is easier) are all different things. i'm unsure if terrorists in the common sense - Al Qaeda etc - have access to fissile materials. maybe. i'm pretty sure they don't have a working bomb (yet). why? because if they did, they would not need a conventional "delivery system" which you suggest - a missile, long-range bomber, or such. what they would probably do is park a small boat with the bomb in the haven of a large US or Israeli city and explode it. the chances of such an event are fairly high.


Quote:
I was partly afraid that those people would cause an accident that could lead to something life-threatening
i think you watch too much TV the nuclear waste transported to Gorleben is nothing particularly dangerous, and all that fuss about it is ridiculous green propaganda. the coal plants in Germany do FAR more enviromental damage every day than all the nuclear waste ever transported to Gorleben together.
Mumitroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 14:39   Link #17
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fipskuul View Post
Iran has a lot to gain actually. Just think about afterwards. If they put the blame on some crazy army personnel and execute them, and ask Europe or US to control that power so that it won't repeat again, they may solve the problem on their side without giving up much. I doubt, any leader of a western country would want to reply in the same manner, even though they may use that as a pressuring device.
Israel has nukes as well. Iran launches, Israel launches a counter attack. They won't care if it was a bunch of crazies in military or the government. Iran ceases to exist as a nation. However, Iran being an islamic nation, they would likely try to avoid hitting Jerusalem, as it's the third holiest city in Islam. It also happens to be functioning as Israel's capital, so the Israelli government might just make it through largely intact assuming no one else takes advantage of the situation.

Let's assume Iran doesn't hold back and is able to take Israel out completely in a first strike with no counterattack. Iran just nuked Jerusalem and is now embargoed by, if not at war with the rest of the islamic world.

There is simply no scenerio I can see for Iran launching a nuclear weapon against Israel that works out to their benefit.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 14:52   Link #18
Mumitroll
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Quote:
I agree completely on our Israel policy. It's completely counter productive. However, I think you missed my point. Let's say Israel nukes Iran. If we had such a policy we'd then either have to nuke a nation we're more or less allies with, at least in the sense that we've given them a lot of military aid, or do nothing.
lol i think you're not entirely familiar with the political realities of the world

Israel nukes Iran <=> US nukes Iran.


Quote:
Should the US be committed to launch if one of those countries launches a first strike on the other?
obviously, no. the US isnt interested in either. so even if a full-scale nuclear war happened between the two (a scenario which is not all that unrealistic given the Kashmir issues and the current chaotic state in Pakistan - the current government will run out of money within 3 weeks last I read, and if they get overthrown, probably very radical Islamic nationalists would come to power), the US would probably not bother. although a potential course of action they may take would be to remove the Pakistani government and install someone more friendly - more so than Musharraf.


Quote:
Iran has a lot to gain actually. Just think about afterwards.
lol there would be no afterwards. Iran launches a nuclear attack on Israel = Iran ceases to exist as a country. that is crystal-clear obvious to everyone involved.


Quote:
That is why, you need to stop that from happening. You cannot take a risk on something like that. It takes a lot of evil courage to pull that trigger, but, we know there are people who would do that without having a second thought, and even with an excuse of following their religious beliefs.
well, you see, while I tend to agree that Israeli leaders are a bit more trustworthy than Iran's ayatollahs (although, to be accurate, the Israelis have been far more aggressive in the past), I dont think either of them are suicidal. Iran having tactical nuclear missiles capable of reaching Israel might actually be a good thing - it would create at least some kind of power balance between Arab and Israeli sides, and perhaps help to finally solve the Palestinian conflict. its about as unlikely that the ayatollah's would launch them as that the Israelis would.


Quote:
Israel has nukes as well.
its not even "as well". that caricature above is pretty accurate. Israel, although it never published figures about its nuclear arsenal, is widely surmised to have 200+ 100kt+ class warheads. that is enough to turn all of Iran into a barren wasteland.

Iran on the other hand - so far - has nothing. maybe a couple low-yield warheads in the near future. while it is enough for millions of victims in Israel, it is certainly not enough to take out all of Israel's nuclear capacities. and if there's a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran, the US would in all likelihood perform a nuclear counterattack as well - with obvious consequences.
Mumitroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 14:54   Link #19
Seifall
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
The problem is that the France is the one who gave the atomic bomb to Israel and now they are like always, all european countries absolutely against the fact that Iran wants it.
So where is the justice here ?
Of course Iran is a muslim country which has a lot of precedent concerning the terrorism, so it goes without saying that imagining this country in possesion of the nuclear weapon is all but reassuring.
However at the same time, Israel is not the perfect example of the country where human rights are respected.
Giving the bomb to Israel created an enormous strategic unbalance allowing the jewish strategist to exercice a nuclear blackmail not only on their arabic neighbours but also on superpowers like United States by example.
I find it paradoxical that countries which are responsible of this time trial to obtain the nuclear weapon in the middle East want now to restrain the access at nuclear .
You cannot give the bomb to your ally and saying after " To want nuclear weapon nowadays will just rekindle useless tensions".
And I do not want to be harsh but the fact is the IAEA is just as useless as UN since they have no real powers.
It's been a long time since I do not expect anything from them. They're on the contrary, strong to say for the IAEA :" We are alarmed by X country nuclear weaponization" or for the UN : " We adopted the resolution number X" , " We absolutely condemn..." . And in majority of the case it stays as it is.
Using negociations instead of threats is more likely to have an impact on civilian populations of the countries which still don't want to stop their weaponization.
Of course concessions have to be made ( territory,civil material, petrol area...) if not, it's clearly without hope.
Seifall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-10, 15:10   Link #20
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumitroll View Post
lol i think you're not entirely familiar with the political realities of the world

Israel nukes Iran <=> US nukes Iran.
We were discussing a proposal that the US agrees to respond against any nation that launches a first strike against any other nation as a universal deterrant. I was merely pointing out a situation where the policy breaks down no matter what we do. Again with the India Pakistan thing, of course we wouldn't act. However, if we did have such a policy we'd have to, or the bluff has been called and said policy becomes worthless.

Also, while what you say may be true in the minds of some, Israel has in the past openly defied the US and did whatever they wanted. While the US has always stood behind Israel in the end, that does not mean that everything Israel does is approved or condoned by the US before hand.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.