Iran may have acquired Nuclear War Heads.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Again, we are comparing apples and oranges here.
The point is there are nuts and people that talk like nuts, but really are not nuts. As I said most of the televangelists in the US qualify for that.

IMHO, I'm-a-dinner-jacket (gotta remember that one), is very much like a televangelist. He will preach of paradise, but in reality he very much likes to live.

Hitler, btw did not want the war to be a world war. He begged the English not go to war with him and he supposedly was in tears when he saw the thousands of tanks (with US made parts) that Stalin had waiting to roll over Europe. His attack on Russia was a preemptive strike out of desparation. He was a nutjob for many reasons and he was insane, no doubt about it, but I think that he would have prefered to stay alive. He was not in favor of commiting suicide for some paradise in the afterlife.
Ahmanureshit (OK, lame- not as funny as Msimons, but I hope I get points for trying) is IMHO calculating and certainly evil, but IMHO, he is likes to live.
Besides, nuclear weapons are mostly meant as a deterrent. If you actually use them, you loose that functionality and it will hurt you more than help you.
Right now though, we can savely assume that he does not even have any.
The moment he has nukes, I expect something to happen from Israel and the US side.
IMHO, if they are smart, it is not an outright war against Iran, it would be something more subtle. Israel has the best intelligence in the world after all.
IMHO, it would be a "real pitty" if that nuke accidentlially exploded somewhere in Iran, right?
Wouldnt that totally sway the public opinion of the people of Iran against their leadership and against the nuclear programme?

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

IMHO, I'm-a-dinner-jacket (gotta remember that one), is very much like a televangelist. He will preach of paradise, but in reality he very much likes to live.

Do you have anything more comforting to offer us than your opinion, something concrete perhaps?

Additionally, he doesn't run the country, he serves at the pleasure of the Supreme Leader, whose religious nut credentials run much deeper, and he s the one that would have the codes to the nukes anyways.

And all of this you are still ignoring my repeated rebuke that neither of those two are limited to just words, as your argument claims. They haven't merely declared the removal of Israel as a holy quest. They pretty near founded Hezbollah as a branch of their own Republican Guard, and continue to train, fund and arm them every single day. Hezbollah counts as an arm of Iranian foreign policy that is directly executing and acting on the 'nut' talk of Iran's leaders.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Skipjack wrote:Ahmanureshit... is IMHO calculating and certainly evil, but IMHO, he is likes to live.
Even a humble opinion needs some basis. What is your basis? Anything more than sometimes-nuts-just-talk-like-nuts?

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

bcglorf wrote:IMHO, I'm-a-dinner-jacket (gotta remember that one), is very much like a televangelist. He will preach of paradise, but in reality he very much likes to live.

Do you have anything more comforting to offer us than your opinion, something concrete perhaps?

Additionally, he doesn't run the country, he serves at the pleasure of the Supreme Leader, whose religious nut credentials run much deeper, and he s the one that would have the codes to the nukes anyways.

And all of this you are still ignoring my repeated rebuke that neither of those two are limited to just words, as your argument claims. They haven't merely declared the removal of Israel as a holy quest. They pretty near founded Hezbollah as a branch of their own Republican Guard, and continue to train, fund and arm them every single day. Hezbollah counts as an arm of Iranian foreign policy that is directly executing and acting on the 'nut' talk of Iran's leaders.
A lot of people don't know that Hezbollah is Iran's proxy army. Good to see that some people do know this.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Diogenes wrote:
bcglorf wrote:IMHO, I'm-a-dinner-jacket (gotta remember that one), is very much like a televangelist. He will preach of paradise, but in reality he very much likes to live.

Do you have anything more comforting to offer us than your opinion, something concrete perhaps?

Additionally, he doesn't run the country, he serves at the pleasure of the Supreme Leader, whose religious nut credentials run much deeper, and he s the one that would have the codes to the nukes anyways.

And all of this you are still ignoring my repeated rebuke that neither of those two are limited to just words, as your argument claims. They haven't merely declared the removal of Israel as a holy quest. They pretty near founded Hezbollah as a branch of their own Republican Guard, and continue to train, fund and arm them every single day. Hezbollah counts as an arm of Iranian foreign policy that is directly executing and acting on the 'nut' talk of Iran's leaders.
A lot of people don't know that Hezbollah is Iran's proxy army. Good to see that some people do know this.
I figure anyone expressing a strong opinion on Iran or Israel knows this. Iif they don't already then their opinion can be immediately dismissed, since plainly they have formed their strong opinion without bothering to gather any relevant facts first.

It is depressingly common, though I tend to hope the internet makes it seem worse than it is.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Yes, but funding a militia like Hezbollah is not suicidal insanity (the guys funding Hebollah and their families are still very much alive, Hezbollahs suicide terrorists are "just strangers" to them anyway).
Again, you fail to see my point, or I fail to see yours.
Your reasoning for a preemptive strike against Iran now(!) without giving the opposition movement a chance and accepting the loss of innocent lives, is that the government is a bunch of religious nuts that are willing to commit suicide by either turning nuclear weapons against their own people, or by atacking Israel with nuclear weapons, which would result in the complete annihilation of Iran and any of its allies (if there are any), without a doubt. Because if you do a nuclear war anyway, why stop at Iran?
My argument is that these people are not suicidal, religious nuts, but powerhungry assholes that use religion to manipulate people into fighting their wars. That does not mean that they are not nutty, but they are a different kind of nut.
Anyway, if I am right, there is a chance for a peaceful solution and maybe even an allie. Your solution will remove any chance of peace for another 50 years, if not for longer.
The question is, what is more desireable? Of course if you have stock in the weapons industry, you will prefer the one that makes the most boom ;)
Personally, I prefer being more subtle. Instigate a little revolution, use intelligence and careful actions. Israel would be very capable of that, I am very sure and it would be the much wiser strategy.

Anyway, let me spin that further. Even IF they were to use the nukes against their own people, it would be THEM using the nukes agains their own people. It would completely destroy the reputation of these people and anything they stand for in the eyes of the world (even the other muslim countries). They would need help rebuilding and the west could help, demonstrating that we are the good guys.

An all out war would IMHO have totally the opposite effect. You might be able to win the battle, but the long term goals would IMHO be lost.

Anyway, all I am saying is that it would be very smart to carefully weigh your options and to have VERY solid (read better than Iraq) intelligence, before doing anything.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Yes, but funding a militia like Hezbollah is not suicidal insanity (the guys funding Hebollah and their families are still very much alive, Hezbollahs suicide terrorists are "just strangers" to them anyway).
Again, you fail to see my point, or I fail to see yours.


My point is there is plain and clear evidence that their hate based saber rattling is more than just talk, and is backed up by their actions as well. You need to provide better assurances that it's all so much bluster, your gut feeling isn't exactly 'evidence'.

Your reasoning for a preemptive strike against Iran now(!) without giving the opposition movement a chance and accepting the loss of innocent lives

That is not my position actually. My position is that a pre-emptive strike must be on the table. My position is that a pre-emptive strike is MORE desirable than a nuclear armed theocracy in Iran. My position is also that the BEST solution is to let the green movement succeed and skip all the unpleasantness. My point is that we need a plan B should the green movement fail to bear fruit before the mullah's nuclear program does.

I am simply stating that a judgment call needs to be made at some point were it is recognized that the green movement has run out of time, and a strike of some sort is the only option to stop Iran's nuclear aspirations.

Even IF they were to use the nukes against their own people

That's not my fear, as it would be a mistake on their part and they'd never do it. What they very well might do, and you've failed to provide assurances against, is deliver those weapons to Hezbollah. Particularly if they can do it sometime after a North Korean shipment arrives in Syria to broaden the blame out a bit.

The trick is that the Supreme Leader ultimately rules through fear, doubt and military force. If those pillars are shaken by the green movement, regional instability and even outright war would HELP the Republican Guard hold on to their domestic power.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

My position is also that the BEST solution is to let the green movement succeed and skip all the unpleasantness.
Well at least we aggree on that one.
Supporting religious nuts does not mean that you yourself are a religious nut.
The US supported the Taliban in Afghanistan (once again, bad choice of allies) with weapons, intelligence and more, when they were fighting the Soviets there. That did not make the US politicians religious muslim fanatics.
It was political calculation (IMHO not a very good one, but that is to be debated another day) that made the US do that.

Let me say it differently: Pakistan is in many ways comparable to Iran, only that their foe of joice is not Israel, but India.
They havent used nuclear weapons against India yet either and they have had them for many years now.
I would be just as worried about them giving a nuke to Al Quaida, as I would be about Iran giving a nuke to Hezbollah.
Also, I do most certainly hope that the Israeli intelligence and other western intelligence agancies would be capable of at least noticing if a nuke changed hands.

On the NK nukes. So far I have only seen one fizzle test in NK. IMHO there are no functioning nuclear weapons there. NK might be making bold claims, but they have not shown anything.

Iran has not even achieved that yet.
A dirty bomb is much more likely, or even biological weapons. If you want to see what even a weak biological attack could do, then look at the EHC panic in Germany right now (not a biological attack, just a natural event)...
It is panic and terror, billions in damage, long term effects on the economy. In way just like 9/11... did not even take a nuke for that one either.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Supporting religious nuts does not mean that you yourself are a religious nut.
Just a garden variety nut.

====

The counterfactual in all this is that had the Brits/French marched on the Austrian Corporal in 1936 a lot of unpleasantness could have been avoided. And the amount of unpleasantness avoided could never be properly evaluated. So of course marching on him would have been an infamy. For ever and ever. Amen. Praise the lord.

So I guess we just let the sane men acting like nuts gather their forces and see how it turns out. Might be pretty good. Or at least not TOO bad.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

"The only justification in the use of force is to reduce the
amount of force necessary to be used."

- Alfred North Whitehead
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Just saw this.


Rand Analyst: Iranian A-Bomb May Be Eight Weeks Away
According to a new analysis from Rand Corporation defense policy analyst Gregory Jones, Tehran may be just eight weeks away from being able to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear bomb. Despite reports of setbacks in its nuclear program, Iran is making steady progress towards an atomic weapon, he said.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/294 ... ight-weeks
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Supporting religious nuts does not mean that you yourself are a religious nut.
The US supported the Taliban in Afghanistan (once again, bad choice of allies) with weapons, intelligence and more, when they were fighting the Soviets there. That did not make the US politicians religious muslim fanatics.


Your analogy is poor. For starters, the US wasn't supporting the Taliban but a whole host of jihadists spanning not only the Taliban but the Taliban's rival and enemy factions as well.
-If Iran is America and the Soviets are Israel, you ARE declaring that Iran's interest in attacking Israel is very deadly real, and not just so much religious opiate for the masses.
-More importantly though, America wasn't being ruled by a religious caliphate calling for the global rule of Islamic law while they supported the Mujahideen.

Pakistan is in many ways comparable to Iran, only that their foe of joice is not Israel, but India.
They havent used nuclear weapons against India yet either and they have had them for many years now.
I would be just as worried about them giving a nuke to Al Quaida, as I would be about Iran giving a nuke to Hezbollah.


Once again, this is a point we agree on the facts and analogy, but differ on the conclusion. I think it was you who said before, and again to my agreement, that Pakistan is far more worrisome to you than Iran? The risk of a Pakistani nuke ending up in the hands of an Islamic Jihadist is probably one of the most difficult and serious foreign policy problems facing western civilizations. And your right, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be very similar to Pakistan's holding them, save that Iran's enemy of choice is Israel not India.

I differ from you in that I take NO comfort in that analogy. In my opinion our world needs one less Islamic state filled with extremists and armed with nuclear weapons, not one more. In Pakistan I don't where the hope is, their moderates like Benazir Bhutto are being killed off faster than we can replace them and the population is more angry over Osama's death than over the the 10's of thousands of Pakistanis Osama himself had killed.


I'd like to finish by bringing up another point we shared. That in Iran, a war would be to the benefit of the Republican Guard and would likely kill off the green movement. We agree on this?

That leads to my main concern regarding waiting too long. If the green movement can't overthrow the powers that be before they acquire nuclear weapons, we have a serious problem. Nuking Israel would inevitably lead to open war. We've already agreed, open war would is greatly to the detriment of the green movement. Even if the Republican Guard's threats and attacks against Israel are so much calculated bluster, what happens when the green movement makes them desperate? If it looks like things are going the way of Libya or Egypt, it makes a certain monstrous sense for Iran's leadership to nuke Israel and hope they can rule the ashes after rather than cede power.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Diogenes wrote:Just saw this.


Rand Analyst: Iranian A-Bomb May Be Eight Weeks Away
According to a new analysis from Rand Corporation defense policy analyst Gregory Jones, Tehran may be just eight weeks away from being able to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear bomb. Despite reports of setbacks in its nuclear program, Iran is making steady progress towards an atomic weapon, he said.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/294 ... ight-weeks
So does that mean that tomorrow Rand will make a report saying that Iran is 7 weeks away from an Israeli attack?

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I never said that I doubted that the Iranian leadership does have issues with Israel. They do have lots of issues, but the issues are worldly ones, not religious ones.
Again, the argumentation was that Iran would do something suicidal in order to hurt Israel because they are religious nuts.
My argumentation is that they wont do anything suicidial in order to hurt Israel (still trying to hurt Israel though), because they are just the local garden variety of powerhungry "I want world dominance" kind of nut and not the suicide bomber religious kind of nut.
The former would use nukes against Israel or Israels allies and even revolution leaders in the own country, even if it meant suicide.
The latter would not do that.
Clearer now?

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Skipjack wrote: They do have lots of issues, but the issues are worldly ones, not religious ones.
??? What do you base that on?

Post Reply