1/21 "India must not allow itself to be dragooned into joining the
Washington-led nuclear lynch mob against Iran," The Hindu, one
of India's most influential newspapers, cautioned Thursday.
http://tinyurl.com/baa48
Iran Sanctions Could Drive Oil Past $100
Looks like US and Bush admin addiction to oil is compromising
our abililty to impose sanctions without hurting ourselves.
$100 oil will tip US into recession.
\_ Trolling at its finest.
\_ Simple answer--India wants gas. Iran has lots of it. Viz.
China and Sudan. -John
\_ Iran supplys something like 18% of petro to China. and
Iran is only major oil-producing nation which China has
big investment in it. To ask China to mess around with
Iran is like asking USA to mess around with Saudi's.
\_ Sort of my point, isn't it? The only difference is that
some nations exhibit more scruples about the types of
government maintained by their energy suppliers (at least
when it suits them to do so.) -John
\_ absolute monarchy which export extreme version of Islam?
FYI, China deals a lot of nasty government for its
energy needs (Sudan, for example). But Iran is *NOT*
one of those 'nasty' governments.
\_ I'm pretty sure everyone here but you would consider
mainland China to be one of those 'nasty' governments.
\_ Uhm, wow...chicom troll doublethink at its finest.
\_ Chicom troll, I am sad. After all my intensive troll
training, your reading comprehension still equals your
grammar skills and no more. -John
\_ care to explain how US-Saudi relationship is morally
more superior than China-Iran relationship?
^more
\_ Why should I? You did catch the "when it suits
them" part, right? You may also have noted a
mildly sarcastic tone in my post. Back to
reading comp 101, grasshopper. -John
\_ To the person worried about Pakistan as a greater proliferation
threat than Iran, one of the key problems with Iran getting
nukes is they're a terrorist state and, unlike Pakistan, would
be very likely to try directly or help their proxy terrorist
armies smuggle a nuke into some other country's harbor. There
can't be any retaliation for such an act since it would be
impossible to prove who nuked the city. That city could be any
coastal city with a port (all of them) in the world, or any city
reachable easily by land due to lax boarders. "Iran getting a
nuke just isn't that big a deal" is a stupid concept for this and
many other reasons. This whole thread is troll heaven. Have fun.
\_ Iran is not a terrorist state. They support certain group to
\_ Iran is *NOT* a terrorist state. They support certain group to
achieve their foreign policy. If anything, USA has outdo Iran
in Afganstan in the 1980s, both in terms of amount of money
involved, and the degree of extremism which the group receiving
the aid. Iran, though eccentric from our point of view, is
nevertheless a rational State. No rational state would give
out nuclear weapon to any group just because chances of getting
backfired is very high. Pakistan is a problem because their
intelligent service, one of the best in the world, has close
tie to Pushtuns/Taliban in Afganistan. N.Korea is a problem
because they have an army which is one million strong but
could barely eat two meals a day... and that they don't
really need any delivery mechanism to do some harm across the
38th parallel. By comparison, Iran is a much less of a problem,
as their youth is demanding more and more reform and open policy
in the near future.
\- It is extremely unlikely any state would as *a matter of policy*
give away nukes. Schelling and Waltz [see links below] agree
with this position and the scenario you spell out seems
ridiculous ... iran would give one of its only nukes to a
"terrorist army" to do whatever it wanted with it ... something
that doesnt really advance iranian state aims in any concrete
way but does run massive risks of getting caught and in
which case iran faces a gret likelihood of this getting traced
back to them. so the "policy" of xfer to terrorists scenario
is not likely. the "loose nukes" -> terrorists scenario seems
more likely and the more reasonable threats there are russia
[lots of nukes], pak [state meltdown] or nkorea selling nuke
tech. again the issue isnt "should we be happy or sad about
iran getting nukes" but "what should he us policy be" and
the policy formation stage depends on your beliefs about how
this changes iran's "intentions and capabilities".
\- What does a nuclear Iran with a small number of bombs with
limited delivery options let Iran do that it cant do now,
except significantly deter say bombing Tehran. This is a
serious question and I have some ideas but I want to hear
what other people think first. --thehindu@soda
\_ much of US' attitude toward Iran is irrational. We
overthrow their democratic government in the 1950's, then
the Shah we installed got overthrown, and we were angry at
Iran ever since. So, answer your question, a nuclear
Iran is probably less problematic than Nuclear N.Korea or
Pakistan. By the way, India were on the side of USA last
time UN voted on this matter.
\- i didnt ask "why is the us concerned about iran"
[which would be a foreign policy question], i asked
"how is the iran+nukes scenario different from
the iran-nonukes scenario" which is a question
about prediction or capabilities. anyway, one
scenario which i suppose is possible is that
the new iranian leader will feel a little more
emboldened to pursue low level terrorism sponsorship
[unlike libya or syria now] with nukes than without.
btw, aside from anti-western fatatics, you can hardly
blame reasonable iranians for being pissed off about
how the us handled the aftermath of the vincennes
shooting down the iranian airliner.
\_ Hi pro-Iranian Troll! No one gave a shit about the Shah.
Are you totally unaware of that little thing we called
The Hostage Crisis that went on for a few hundred days?
\_ no one give a shit about Shah? The demand *WAS* about
1. apologize the overthrow of Mosaddeq and
2. hand over Shah back to Iran so USA won't try to
install him again.
This is typical... memory selectively failed on
all the wrong doings beforehand, then react violently
to the repercussion in the name of self-defense.
\_ Threaten to hit southern Europe. I don't understand how this
isn't obvious.
\_ why Iran want to bomb southern Europe again? it's not
obvious at all.
\_ I'll rephrase it from the other point of view: if you
were in south europe would it concern you if the crazies
in Iran got nukes? (yes, you're in reach in S.E.) Crazy
people should not have nukes. That should be obvious.
\_ it is *NOT* obvious that Iran is a "crazy" state.
Just because USA doesn't like Iran doesn't make it
crazy. There are plenty of nations having plenty of
normal bilateral relationships with Iran. They are
no less / no more diff than any other countries in the
region. In fact, if anything, Iran is a much normal
state than, let say, Saudi Arabia.
\_ BUD DAY does *NOT* like your tone, son.
\- So if Iran gets 10 nuclear bombs they may threaten
to nuke Athens? Rome? Nice? Can you spell out this
obvious scenario a little more? I would be helpful
if you signed your name since I want to know if I am
speaking to the same person in a followup. Just out of
curiosity, why isnt Pakistan interested in hitting
southern europe. Obviously it is implicit in my question
"what could they do and would have some interest in
doing".
\_ I think I'm being trolled so my answer will be brief:
Pakistan is a secular dictatorship who wants nukes
because their long term enemy next door has them.
Pakistan also doesn't have the range to hit most of India
much less Europe so that isn't an issue even if they
wanted to do so.
Iran is run by religious fundmentalist Muslims who
believe it is their duty to spread their form of Islam
over the entire world.
Europe is a secular super nation/state and happens to be
the closest interesting area to Iran.
Finally, what is the point of asking for my name when you
don't give yours? How do I know any responses will be
you?
\_ Two additions. They are willing to spread Islam
by murder/conquest if necessary, and they seem to
think it would be a good idea to nuke Israel. -!pp
\_ you are mixing up Iran with Saudi Arabia.
Further, USA spread democracy by murder/conquest if
necessary too, right?
\_ When did you stop beating your wife?
\_ My eyes, they see only happy things!
\_ You and chicom troll, man. Maybe you
should switch to a lower dosage....
\_ Some possibilities that I can think of:
1. Nuke strategic targets in Israel. I do not think that
Iran has sufficient conventional weapons that can be
delivered as far as Israel and cause serious damage.
2. Give the nukes to Iran friendly factions currently
fighting in Iraq or Afganistan. Iran's conventional
capability, again, is probably insufficient to signif-
icantly affect American forces.
3. Give the nukes to Pakistan for use against India (or
perhaps direct use against India).
--yaHindu@soda.
\_ Seriously, each of your points are so dumb,
you really need to stay out of this discussion.
What does a faction struggling for political
control need a nuclear bomb for? Given that
Pakistan already has nukes and Iran doesn't,
doesnt it seem a little odd to be talking about
Iran -> Pak nuke xfer. And what does Iran get out
of seriously pissing off India? Are you are troll
or are you an idiot? To be ignorant of politics
is ok, but to be so dumb as to wade into a
conversation where you have no grasp of any of
the relevant facts, is just ...
the relevant fact, is just ...
India and Iran are on decent terms. Khatami was
the guest of honor at the 2003 Republic Day
festivities. Later this week, this year's chief
guest will be the Saudi king.
\_ Do you seriously think there would be anything left of
the place formerly known as "Iran" within several hours
of a nuclear attack on Israel? Israel almost certainly
\- or france, or italy or ...
has the H-bomb, and presumably already has everything in
Iran targeted with the finger on the button, and one would
imagine that Iran knows this. I would also hope, as an
American, that if they ever used a nuclear weapon on Israel
and Israel was unable to retaliate for some reason, that
the U.S. would level their country.
\_ Do you seriously think the nutheads running Iran share
your belief in Mutally Assured Destruction theories or
your western view of the value of life? Willing to bet
a few million lives on it? Not even the Iranians are
willing to try to push that line. Their entire public
stance is that this is about peaceful energy sources
for their own country which is a crock since they're
the fourth largest oil producer in the world and have
relatively tiny energy needs.
\- yes the public stance is a lie but the
bush administration also knew that the
steel tarriffs were illegal. and the us
signing on to plank ii of the NPT is also
a "crock". the rhetoric is not important.
whether you would choose to bet on it is
also not important, since preventing this
is not a free choice. the question is
what should the us do about it, and then
three categories are accept that it will
happen [not necesarily quietly], try to
prevent it without military action, try
to prevent it with military action.
i personally think the us will not be able
to prevent iran from getting nukes although
it is possible some actions can make it
take say 10yrs instead of 5. i also dont
think the mullahs actually in power are
as irrational as you seem to think they are.
this isnt an especially great interview
but it is from a long time commentator on
nukes who isnt a liberal fruitcake on this
exactly question. BTW Schelling also won the
Econ nobel last year, in part for this work
on nuclear deterrence theory:
http://csua.org/u/eql
After stumbling on that article i searched
for some other good names. see the last
page of this article:
http://csua.org/u/eqm
Nicely put: "the us worries as much
about being deterred as being attacked".
Well i dunno about the "as much" but
if you factor probabilities in, that is
probably true. Waltz is ex-UCB and
"The world's most influential International
Relations scholar" and "most cited book
ever written in the field of International
Relations". Mearshimer is also a pretty
interesting fellow. Allison is a little
airy-fairy. Jervis is solid. I am not
familar with the other fellow.
BTW, do you think the people advocating
SDI dont believe in MAD? do you think they
are willing to bet millions of lives on
SDI/ABM technology?
Relations scholar" and author of "the most
cited book ever written in the field of
International Relations". Mearshimer is
also a pretty interesting fellow. Allison
is a little airy-fairy. Jervis is solid.
I am not familar with the other fellow.
\- look the "iran nukes X" scenario is ridiculous.
one thing that is possible is they will be
emboldened to more aggressively pursue low level
terrorism and figure the US is less likely to
bomb tehran in retaliation [along the likes of
Raygun bombing Khadafi]. i actually think the pakistani
bomb is more dangerous than the iran bomb because
a meltdown of the pakistani state in the crazy direction
is a lot more likely and then you may have loose nukes.
if pakistan has a meltdown in the next 10 yrs ... say
their maximum leader is assassinated and different
military generals start a violent struggle and one
tries to ally with a fundamentalist faction ... it will
be an interesting question whether india or the united
states will freak out more.
\_ How would a "meltdown of the pakistani state in the
crazy direction" look any different from what Iran
already is?
\- iran is not an anarchy. i would worry more about
the period of anarchy than the aftermath. that's
what i mean by "loose nukes". nuclear weapons are
good for deterring threats against the homeland.
the big problem with the is the problem of
accidents and proliferation to non-state actors.
what effects nukes have lower of the "ladder of
escalation" is unclear. like would the iran-
iraq war have looked different if one side had
5-10 bombs? i dont think that is clear. if both
sides had 5-10 nukes do you think it would have
happened at all?
\_ Pakistan is a different issue and is not
currently 3 months from having nukes running
around loose. And even if Pakistan was in
the midst of chaos the Iran situation would
remain a problem and need to be dealt with.
I don't understand this "we can only deal with
or think about one problem at a time and the
worst problem makes the second worst problem
ok and acceptable by comparison." This sort of
deflection is the second weakest form of
rhetorical debate tactic.
\- i'm not the one saying "we can only
deal with one problem at a time" and i
am not sure anybody else here is.
my position is:
1. i think iran will get nukes
2. i think from their point of view it makes
sense for them to get nukes [just like it
makes sense for pakistan and the israelis,
and note "makes sense/is rational" !=
"is a good thing/makes me happy"]
3. i would personally be more worried about
the PAK nukes[#4], but that is a estimation
of risks not a policy prescription ...
i might think Las Vegas real estate will
do better than Phoenix real estate but
that doesnt mean i am suggesting buying
into Vega$.
4. in gereral i think the concern about
proliferation is really about "loose
nukes" rather than states we dont line
having the bomb. so the problem is
stability and competence more than
ideology.
[once again, you may wish to see the
adelphi paper "the spread of nuclear weapons,
more may be better", written by a now
fmr ucb prof kenneth waltz.]
5. sure iran is doing lots of lying but
guess what, that's standard in diplomacy.
if country A asks country B, are you
spying on us, what are they supposed to
do, answer the question completely and
truthfully? when the us signed the non-
proliferation treaty which says the
nuclear states should eventually be
pursuing the goal of total disarmamanet
did the us lie?
\_ Sell their oil to whomever they wish, continue with theocracy
without fear of US inteference, etc. Nukes are a deterrent.
They say leave us the hell alone.
\_ No one is invading Iran. Their 18 year effort to get nukes
and the lies they've told about it are not about getting a
deterrent.
\_ Instead of speaking in negatives, how about explaining
what Iran is doing, then?
\_ Various elements in the Bush Administration have
threatened Iran with invasion and Bush included them
in his "axis of evil" so I think it is reasonable that
they are concerned about an invasion. If things had
gone well in Iraq, Bush proabably would have invaded
Iran by now. |
http://csua.com/feed/