bcglorf wrote:
I personally follow the other take on this. If the guy is willing to pander to the religious extremists, why in the world would one advocate for that as a reason to trust him to stop doing so if he acquires nuclear weapons?
Surely his apparent desire to do and say what the fanatics want him to say is an argument AGAINST trusting his better judgment and nature.
It is an axiomatic principle among military planners that you don't pay much attention to what people say they will or will not do. You pay attention to what they are CAPABLE of doing, and assume the worst. I think that if we allow Iran to obtain the CAPABILITY to nuke Israel, we will have committed the worst possible folly, and we will have condemned millions of people to death.
It is my opinion that we should have kicked Iran's @ss years ago. (Thank you Jimmy Carter.) I think the Iranian Fanatics are a far greater threat than Saddam ever was.
Russia, China, Britain, France, Pakistan, India and the US are also capable of nuking Israel.
Does that mean US military planner should nuke all these countries and then nuke themselves for good measure in order toi remove that capability?
You may or may not recall that I have been a consistent advocate for Curtis LeMay's solution to the problem of nuclear proliferation, especially as applied to the Communists. That opportunity is now past, and regarding enemy forces in control of Nuclear weapons there is nothing left to do beyond MAD threats.
Fortunately, these work on relatively sane adversaries. They most assuredly will NOT work on religious nut jobs.
I believe Isaac Asimov wrote a story about a Nuclear scientist developing a new generation of Nuclear weapon. Another Scientist comes to reason him out of developing this powerful bomb. (Able to destroy an entire continent.) The Nuclear Scientist has a retarded son who lives with him. Unable to convince the Nuclear Scientist to forgo his work, he asks for a glass of water. When the Nuclear Scientists goes to get it, the man leaves a loaded revolver with the retarded child. The father comes into the room to find the man gone and his boy pointing the gun at him with his finger on the trigger. He carefully urges the boy to put down the toy, and eventually manages to get the gun away from him.
He then wonders what kind of man would give a loaded gun to a retarded child?
Indeed.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Everyone seems to constanty complain about how we're "letting" Iran develop the bomb.
Iran has just got trade sanctions up to its eyeballs and their still enriching Uranium. Their a sovereign nation! Sovereign nations hell bent on developing nuclear weapons eventually will and nothing short of a total invasion of the country can stop them for sure.
Let them develop nuclear weapons! Let them develop nuclear weapons!
At the end of the day its a simple question which is better, and all out pre-emptive unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation with a population of 80 million people (who we haven't even proved are developing nuclear weapons and may infact just be pursuing civilian reactor technology) or to allow the possibility to exist that they may someday in the future develop a nuclear weapon.
How big a deal is it if they develop a nuclear weapon anway?
200,000 people died in Hiroshima
1 million people died in the Iraq war.
And in a conventional war with Iran one could reasonably expect more than a million people to die as its got 5 times Iraq's population.
There are plent of other crazy regimes with nuclear weapons (China for one) yet the world keeps turning.
IMHO the fact that people we don't like may develop nuclear weapons is just a generic risk of modern day politics and not one worth starting wars over that could kills millions as a result.
If we actually put some real effort into developing SDI defences then the dangers of a nuclear weapon would be much reduced anyway.
Who knows, if Iran develops nuclear weapons it may be a blessing as it would give the US a credible diplomatic excuse for developing a robust missile defense network which the Chinese and Russians wouldn't have an excuse to complain about.
This would protect the US from missiles from a wide range of hostile countruies in addition to Iran and would be far less bloody than a war with Iran.
I think your "Neville Chamberlain" solution will work as well as the original did.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
They most assuredly will NOT work on religious nut jobs.
As I said before, just because someone talks like a religious nut, does not mean he really is one.
Half of the teleevangelists in the US talk like religious nuts, but they are just after the money (e.g. Popov). They even claim to perform miracles on the stage!
They most assuredly will NOT work on religious nut jobs.
As I said before, just because someone talks like a religious nut, does not mean he really is one.
Half of the teleevangelists in the US talk like religious nuts, but they are just after the money (e.g. Popov). They even claim to perform miracles on the stage!
I wouldn't trust them with nuclear weapons either.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
I wouldn't trust them with nuclear weapons either.
Neither would I, but then I dont trust anybody with nuclear weapons. IMHO nobody should have to much destructive power, especially in these days, where terrorists might steal them.
As I said though, you should be more concerned about Pakistan and also India in this regard. They are still 3rd world countries with a lot of extremists living in both of them...
Pakistan has been my biggest worry ever since they became a nuclear power. That country is one hell of a scary place, with a very unstable political situation and Al Quaida in pretty much every place.
They most assuredly will NOT work on religious nut jobs.
As I said before, just because someone talks like a religious nut, does not mean he really is one.
Half of the teleevangelists in the US talk like religious nuts, but they are just after the money (e.g. Popov). They even claim to perform miracles on the stage!
I think your whole proposition that nuts don't really exist is unfounded. If they act like a nut and talk like a nut, they are often nuts.
They most assuredly will NOT work on religious nut jobs.
As I said before, just because someone talks like a religious nut, does not mean he really is one.
Half of the teleevangelists in the US talk like religious nuts, but they are just after the money (e.g. Popov). They even claim to perform miracles on the stage!
I think your whole proposition that nuts don't really exist is unfounded. If they act like a nut and talk like a nut, they are often nuts.
It is a good way to bet.
But suppose we just don't get their world view. What is the diff?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well the difference is that a nut might do something as self destructive as launching a nuclear attack against somebody who also has nukes.
A person that only talks like a nut, but still very much likes to live, would not do that.
Where we part ways is whether they are nuts or just talking like nuts.
Skipjack wrote:Well the difference is that a nut might do something as self destructive as launching a nuclear attack against somebody who also has nukes.
A person that only talks like a nut, but still very much likes to live, would not do that.
Where we part ways is whether they are nuts or just talking like nuts.
We part in another way. You say the fact they are talking like nuts proves they aren't nuts. I say the fact they talk like nuts, and act in accordance with what they say, makes it deadly dangerous to hope they aren't truly nuts.
You say, what if they aren't?
I'm saying, what if they are?
If I'm wrong, we may give up on the green movement too soon, and set back hopes of a friendly democracy within Iran.
If your wrong, it's a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.
You need some strong evidence on your side too, and you can't just hide behind the banner of making war requires overwhelming proof.
Skipjack wrote:Well the difference is that a nut might do something as self destructive as launching a nuclear attack against somebody who also has nukes.
A person that only talks like a nut, but still very much likes to live, would not do that.
Where we part ways is whether they are nuts or just talking like nuts.
As I recall before May of 1940 the Austrian Corporal was only talking like a nut. After that he was a nut.
I wonder what changed his mind?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
As I recall before May of 1940 the Austrian Corporal was only talking like a nut. After that he was a nut.
Msimon, you got that wrong. He always was a nut and in the beginning nobody even noticed... IIRC he was man of the year in time magazine of 1933, wasnt he (but I might be misinformed there, just heard that the other day and thought it was "funny").
As I recall before May of 1940 the Austrian Corporal was only talking like a nut. After that he was a nut.
Msimon, you got that wrong. He always was a nut and in the beginning nobody even noticed... IIRC he was man of the year in time magazine of 1933, wasnt he (but I might be misinformed there, just heard that the other day and thought it was "funny").
Right. And if Iran's Supreme Leader gave a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah the world would die of shock, and wonder how they could have missed the signs???
No, the world would note just as you do now, that he was ALWAYS nuts, as a matter so obvious nobody should have been able to miss it.
And yet here we are, trying to convince you despite the chance he is sane and acting, there is the very real probability he is as nuts as his words and actions suggest.
As I recall before May of 1940 the Austrian Corporal was only talking like a nut. After that he was a nut.
Msimon, you got that wrong. He always was a nut and in the beginning nobody even noticed... IIRC he was man of the year in time magazine of 1933, wasnt he (but I might be misinformed there, just heard that the other day and thought it was "funny").
I don't recall the year (it may have been a few years later) but you are correct.
So my point stands. First he wasn't a nut and then he was. But really he was a nut all along.
Now about that I'm-a-dinner-jacket feller. Has he always been a nut who is not one now but will become one later? Like that German feller?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Skipjack wrote:Well the difference is that a nut might do something as self destructive as launching a nuclear attack against somebody who also has nukes.
A person that only talks like a nut, but still very much likes to live, would not do that.
Where we part ways is whether they are nuts or just talking like nuts.
So the notion that we might go all Curtis LeMay on their @ss doesn't qualify to put them over the nut threshold?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Skipjack wrote:Well the difference is that a nut might do something as self destructive as launching a nuclear attack against somebody who also has nukes.
A person that only talks like a nut, but still very much likes to live, would not do that.
Where we part ways is whether they are nuts or just talking like nuts.
As I recall before May of 1940 the Austrian Corporal was only talking like a nut. After that he was a nut.
I wonder what changed his mind?
The Grip of Methamphetamine addiction can result in all sorts of quirky behavior.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —