Post by: Manedwolf on July 16, 2008, 11:59:27 AM
Quote
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.
Obama said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and Iran has an energy program the Bush administration warns could be a precursor to nuclear weapon development.
"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said.
Obama said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and Iran has an energy program the Bush administration warns could be a precursor to nuclear weapon development.
"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91V3A3O0&show_article=1
So all we have to do is make sure that other nations don't have any nuclear weapons, then we can turn our own into happy fun toys for children with rainbows painted on them, of course.
OF COURSE, no rogue state would EVER think of having some in secret, no, no. Just like when there's gun control, no criminals ever would think to have a gun! Genie, bottle. Does not go back in. Ever.
ARRRRG!
Post by: Brad Johnson on July 16, 2008, 12:02:11 PM
Brad
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 16, 2008, 12:37:41 PM
Quote
Obama said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran.
How so?
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on July 16, 2008, 12:43:53 PM
Aside from the Bruce Willis Armaggedon situations where we need to blow up big rocks coming towards us (or nudge them a bit with a gigaton bomb around Jupiter), I think nuclear weaponry and explosives could be useful for:
1. Lunar or Martian mining or interior terraforming. Build caves in the moon.
2. Clearing the asteroid belt if necessary.
3. Altering the orbit of natural satellites of other planets. Create or decrease tidal forces.
4. Atmospheric detonation of a nuke could be useful for clearing a supervolcanic eruption's soot from the sky here on Earth.
5. Killing aliens that are hostile, whether they look like WWF wrestlers with crab faces, giant insects, big elephants or Area 51 critters. Morality may not be a concept understood by another spacefaring species, or global extinction of life on another planet may seem like a very good idea to us. I don't think PETA would complain if we finished Sigourney Weaver's job and nuked all the bugs from orbit just to make sure.
Post by: Nick1911 on July 16, 2008, 12:51:06 PM
I hate to be an optimist here on top of it all, but couldn't an argument be made that nuclear weaponry and related technology could be insanely useful in space exploration?
Aside from the Bruce Willis Armaggedon situations where we need to blow up big rocks coming towards us (or nudge them a bit with a gigaton bomb around Jupiter), I think nuclear weaponry and explosives could be useful for:
1. Lunar or Martian mining or interior terraforming. Build caves in the moon.
2. Clearing the asteroid belt if necessary.
3. Altering the orbit of natural satellites of other planets. Create or decrease tidal forces.
4. Atmospheric detonation of a nuke could be useful for clearing a supervolcanic eruption's soot from the sky here on Earth.
5. Killing aliens that are hostile, whether they look like WWF wrestlers with crab faces, giant insects, big elephants or Area 51 critters. Morality may not be a concept understood by another spacefaring species, or global extinction of life on another planet may seem like a very good idea to us. I don't think PETA would complain if we finished Sigourney Weaver's job and nuked all the bugs from orbit just to make sure.
Aside from the Bruce Willis Armaggedon situations where we need to blow up big rocks coming towards us (or nudge them a bit with a gigaton bomb around Jupiter), I think nuclear weaponry and explosives could be useful for:
1. Lunar or Martian mining or interior terraforming. Build caves in the moon.
2. Clearing the asteroid belt if necessary.
3. Altering the orbit of natural satellites of other planets. Create or decrease tidal forces.
4. Atmospheric detonation of a nuke could be useful for clearing a supervolcanic eruption's soot from the sky here on Earth.
5. Killing aliens that are hostile, whether they look like WWF wrestlers with crab faces, giant insects, big elephants or Area 51 critters. Morality may not be a concept understood by another spacefaring species, or global extinction of life on another planet may seem like a very good idea to us. I don't think PETA would complain if we finished Sigourney Weaver's job and nuked all the bugs from orbit just to make sure.
Nuclear *anything* has too much of a negative stigma attached to it.
Post by: agricola on July 16, 2008, 12:58:39 PM
I hate to be an optimist here on top of it all, but couldn't an argument be made that nuclear weaponry and related technology could be insanely useful in space exploration?
Aside from the Bruce Willis Armaggedon situations where we need to blow up big rocks coming towards us (or nudge them a bit with a gigaton bomb around Jupiter), I think nuclear weaponry and explosives could be useful for:
1. Lunar or Martian mining or interior terraforming. Build caves in the moon.
2. Clearing the asteroid belt if necessary.
3. Altering the orbit of natural satellites of other planets. Create or decrease tidal forces.
4. Atmospheric detonation of a nuke could be useful for clearing a supervolcanic eruption's soot from the sky here on Earth.
5. Killing aliens that are hostile, whether they look like WWF wrestlers with crab faces, giant insects, big elephants or Area 51 critters. Morality may not be a concept understood by another spacefaring species, or global extinction of life on another planet may seem like a very good idea to us. I don't think PETA would complain if we finished Sigourney Weaver's job and nuked all the bugs from orbit just to make sure.
Aside from the Bruce Willis Armaggedon situations where we need to blow up big rocks coming towards us (or nudge them a bit with a gigaton bomb around Jupiter), I think nuclear weaponry and explosives could be useful for:
1. Lunar or Martian mining or interior terraforming. Build caves in the moon.
2. Clearing the asteroid belt if necessary.
3. Altering the orbit of natural satellites of other planets. Create or decrease tidal forces.
4. Atmospheric detonation of a nuke could be useful for clearing a supervolcanic eruption's soot from the sky here on Earth.
5. Killing aliens that are hostile, whether they look like WWF wrestlers with crab faces, giant insects, big elephants or Area 51 critters. Morality may not be a concept understood by another spacefaring species, or global extinction of life on another planet may seem like a very good idea to us. I don't think PETA would complain if we finished Sigourney Weaver's job and nuked all the bugs from orbit just to make sure.
1. No, there are a lot easier ways of mining than by nuking stuff.
2. The belt isnt that dense, all of our probes that have traversed it made it through without being hit, the current odds of being hit while traversing it is one in a billion.
3. Unlikely, the force released by a nuke isnt that great. Bear in mind that when SL-9 hit Jupiter, one of the fragments (admittedly the biggest one) caused a bang in the order of 6,000,000 megatons of TNT.
4. That would probably cause more harm than good.
5. Aliens on their planet are not the aliens in that situation. Besides, even if we did get there I would hope we would have better stuff than nukes by that point.
Post by: Tallpine on July 16, 2008, 02:18:51 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 16, 2008, 05:20:51 PM
Post by: Scout26 on July 16, 2008, 06:40:26 PM
I don't think PETA would complain if we finished Sigourney Weaver's job and nuked all the bugs from orbit just to make sure.
I think we should send each and every last facing-hugging xenomorph to PETA.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 16, 2008, 06:41:40 PM
6. Project Orion.
And you thought they raised a stink about nuclear power plants?
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 16, 2008, 06:45:08 PM
6. Project Orion.
And you thought they raised a stink about nuclear power plants?
Get the thing into orbit with relatively-friendly 'conventional' rockets, THEN fire it up.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 16, 2008, 09:12:39 PM
He's lucky to have secret service protection, lest his bad behavior earn him a punch in the nose.
Post by: longeyes on July 16, 2008, 09:38:35 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 16, 2008, 09:41:32 PM
President Lotus-eater has one goal: National impotence.
That always ends the same way in every example in history.
"There, see, I'm entirely disarmed, and...uh...guys, what's with all the knives and guns all of a sudden? Guys? Let's be reasonable!"
Post by: longeyes on July 20, 2008, 07:42:57 AM
Quote
When nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.
+1
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 21, 2008, 10:16:57 AM
Gun control and unilateral disarmament work equally well.
Post by: seeker_two on July 21, 2008, 11:55:49 AM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094074/
Post by: Regolith on July 21, 2008, 06:13:39 PM
If Obama is all they say he is, he can use the Superman IV plan.....
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094074/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094074/
Yeah, the superman movie superman fans love to hate (or simply try and pretend never existed).
Post by: macpherson on July 21, 2008, 06:46:14 PM
Quote
4. Atmospheric detonation of a nuke could be useful for clearing a supervolcanic eruption's soot from the sky here on Earth.
Erm...I think that would just make things worse. It would probably just add radioactive fallout to the volcanic debris.
Regardless, it's a meaningless comment, since even he knows there's no way the world will be rid of nukes during his
Post by: MechAg94 on July 22, 2008, 06:04:08 AM
Post by: ilbob on July 22, 2008, 06:10:49 AM
With Obama, who knows.
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 22, 2008, 06:18:02 AM
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 22, 2008, 09:26:48 AM
On using nukes to mine or build caves on the moon, haven't you seen that new Time Machine movie that came out a few years ago? You will just end up breaking apart the moon causing a new dark age on earth after which we will all be slave cattle for mind controlling trolls living underground.
Wonder what Ken Brockman would have to say about the trolls. 
Post by: Tallpine on July 22, 2008, 09:41:27 AM
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 22, 2008, 09:51:30 AM
Everyone knows that trolls live under bridges ...
The Politics forum is a bridge?
Post by: Tallpine on July 22, 2008, 11:24:57 AM
Everyone knows that trolls live under bridges ...
The Politics forum is a bridge?Yes, and you are trip-trapping on it
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 11:47:21 AM
And then to search through and find thread after thread about how Iran's nuclear program must be shut down.
If it's not possible to stop nuclear proliferation, why is there so much support for attempting to do just that in Iran?
Post by: Manedwolf on July 22, 2008, 12:06:45 PM
It's funny to read a thread on how gun control logic is silly when applied to nukes....
And then to search through and find thread after thread about how Iran's nuclear program must be shut down.
If it's not possible to stop nuclear proliferation, why is there so much support for attempting to do just that in Iran?
And then to search through and find thread after thread about how Iran's nuclear program must be shut down.
If it's not possible to stop nuclear proliferation, why is there so much support for attempting to do just that in Iran?
The same reason you don't give a loaded gun to an insane felon who will immediately turn and shoot the person standing next to them.
The day Imajihad gets a functional nuke that will mount on a Shahab 3 is the last day Tel Aviv exists.
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 12:09:25 PM
It's funny to read a thread on how gun control logic is silly when applied to nukes....
And then to search through and find thread after thread about how Iran's nuclear program must be shut down.
If it's not possible to stop nuclear proliferation, why is there so much support for attempting to do just that in Iran?
And then to search through and find thread after thread about how Iran's nuclear program must be shut down.
If it's not possible to stop nuclear proliferation, why is there so much support for attempting to do just that in Iran?
The same reason you don't give a loaded gun to an insane felon who will immediately turn and shoot the person standing next to them.
So it is possible to prevent countries from having nuclear weapons, if we so choose?
Then why is Obama's anti-nuke logic so crazy?
If you can decide to whom nuclear power is given, you can decide who will not have it. That would seem to be a picture perfect justification for a program of rolling back nuclear programs around the world, not just in Iran.
It's just odd to see all this wailing about how silly the idea of stopping nuclear weapons possession around the world is, because technology spreads, knowledge can't be undone, etc....but then if anyone brings up Iran, suddenly it's the most sane and plausible idea in the world to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons.
It's totally impossible if Obama proposes it for countries in addition to Iran, but it's completely possible to prevent the development of Nuclear weapons if we only talk Iran? How does that work?
Post by: Manedwolf on July 22, 2008, 12:13:27 PM
It's funny to read a thread on how gun control logic is silly when applied to nukes....
And then to search through and find thread after thread about how Iran's nuclear program must be shut down.
If it's not possible to stop nuclear proliferation, why is there so much support for attempting to do just that in Iran?
And then to search through and find thread after thread about how Iran's nuclear program must be shut down.
If it's not possible to stop nuclear proliferation, why is there so much support for attempting to do just that in Iran?
The same reason you don't give a loaded gun to an insane felon who will immediately turn and shoot the person standing next to them.
So it is possible to prevent countries from having nuclear weapons, if we so choose?
Then why is Obama's anti-nuke logic so crazy?
If you can decide to whom nuclear power is given, you can decide who will not have it. That would seem to be a picture perfect justification for a program of rolling back nuclear programs around the world, not just in Iran.
You're not understanding. He's saying that if we adhere to nonproliferation treaties, we can "rid the world" of nuclear weapons, including our own. As if nobody would ever secretly make any.
Which is sheer idiocy. It'd be like cops deciding that since there hasn't been a shooting in a while, they can give up their guns in expectation that criminals will behave and never bring out the guns they had in hiding.
We can NEVER have a world without nuclear weapons. All we can have is nuclear weapons in the hands of people who will not use them except as a last resort. Which is the US and our allies.
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 12:20:03 PM
Quote
You're not understanding. He's saying that if we adhere to nonproliferation treaties, we can "rid the world" of nuclear weapons, including our own. As if nobody would ever secretly make any.
and this:
Quote
We can NEVER have a world without nuclear weapons. All we can have is nuclear weapons in the hands of people who will not use them except as a last resort. Which is the US and our allies.
If they can always be made in secret, how can we guarantee that only certain nations will have them?
And if secret nukes are always a possibility, is there any non-nuclear country on earth that we wouldn't be justified in invading....on the grounds that they might have a nuke program that we don't know about?
You can't have it both ways manedwolf-if you can restrict the number of states who have them at all, then it's certainly possible to restrict most, if not all, states from having them (because there has to be a valid means of enforcing the restriction.)
And if you can't restrict nuclear weapons because they could always be developed in secret, then how do you ensure that only "people who will not use them" have nuclear weapons?
Post by: Manedwolf on July 22, 2008, 12:29:14 PM
That's the deterrent. If someone decides to use a secret nuclear weapon, then WE destroy them completely with ours. "Your country will become a sheet of glass" is the deterrent to any rogue state ever using them.
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 12:31:06 PM
The point is that he wants to eliminate OUR arsenal. We cannot EVER do that.
That's the deterrent. If someone decides to use a secret nuclear weapon, then WE destroy them completely with ours. "Your country will become a sheet of glass" is the deterrent to any rogue state ever using them.
That's the deterrent. If someone decides to use a secret nuclear weapon, then WE destroy them completely with ours. "Your country will become a sheet of glass" is the deterrent to any rogue state ever using them.
Okay, so you don't propose that we can or should eliminate nuclear weapons, just that we should keep ours?
So what about Iran? Are we doomed to be nuked by an irrational Iran that eventually gets a secret nuke, or is there some effective method other than raw deterrance for preventing the development of nuclear weapons?
Post by: m1911owner on July 22, 2008, 12:48:15 PM
So what about Iran? Are we doomed to be nuked by an irrational Iran that eventually gets a secret nuke, or is there some effective method other than raw deterrance for preventing the development of nuclear weapons?
It is likely that in the case of Iran, "raw deterrence" is the only way to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.
I saw an editorial today that stated that it is likely that Israel will be forced to use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons that would almost certainly be used to destroy Israel.
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 01:01:19 PM
So what about Iran? Are we doomed to be nuked by an irrational Iran that eventually gets a secret nuke, or is there some effective method other than raw deterrance for preventing the development of nuclear weapons?
It is likely that in the case of Iran, "raw deterrence" is the only way to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.
I saw an editorial today that stated that it is likely that Israel will be forced to use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons that would almost certainly be used to destroy Israel.
Seriously, this is a good exercise for measuring the accuracy of claims about Iran:
Go back through articles in all the major papers beginning in 2004. That's four years ago.
Count how many of those articles (Drudge carried many) loudly proclaim that "Iran will be nuclear in 9-12 months!"
I've been reading that Iran must be destroyed within the next year or else it will nuke Israel each year for the last four years.
Something tells me these editorials aren't so reliable.
Post by: m1911owner on July 22, 2008, 01:05:49 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 01:07:39 PM
I question whether you can find much of that in 2004. In an case, irrespective of what Matt Drudge was or wasn't saying in 2004, are you seriously proposing that Iran will not soon have bomb-grade 235U available with which to make nuclear bombs?
I am seriously proposing that, yes. I'm also seriously proposing that editorials and reports have been alleging that Iran will have bomb grade uranium and be "at the point of no return" within less than a year consistently, every year, for the past four years.
Why they should be right today when they were proven wrong all the years past, I'm not sure, especially considering that in the meantime the US government has come out saying that Iran is not seeking weapons grade uranium.
Post by: m1911owner on July 22, 2008, 01:17:25 PM
I am seriously proposing that, yes. I'm also seriously proposing that editorials and reports have been alleging that Iran will have bomb grade uranium and be "at the point of no return" within less than a year consistently, every year, for the past for years.
Why they should be right today when they were proven wrong all the years past, I'm not sure, especially considering that in the meantime the US government has come out saying that Iran is not seeking weapons grade uranium.
Why they should be right today when they were proven wrong all the years past, I'm not sure, especially considering that in the meantime the US government has come out saying that Iran is not seeking weapons grade uranium.
Well then, sir, I would suggest that you are either incredibly naïve or willfully mendacious.
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 01:29:41 PM
2007:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1567529/We-must-bomb-Iran%2C-says-US-Republican-guru.html
Quote
"None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz.
2006:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1162378384729
Quote
At a briefing with Israeli journalists following her speech, Livni told The Jerusalem Post that Iran was less than two years away from reaching the point where it could enrich uranium, what she, and others, have termed "the point of no return"
2005http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/27/politics.iran
Quote
The Israeli defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, warned yesterday that Iran will reach "the point of no return" within the next 12 months in its covert attempt to secure a nuclear weapons capability.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/13/sharon.mideast/index.html
Quote
In a CNN interview, Sharon said Iran was years away from possessing a nuclear weapon -- but could be just months away from overcoming "technical problems" in building one.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3183779,00.html
Quote
Within three months Iran will reach a point of no return in terms of its technological capacity to manufacture a nuclear bomb, IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz told the Knesset's Security and Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.
2004:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/politics/21diplo.html
Quote
Israel also warns that Iran's nuclear program will reach a "point of no return" next year, after which it will be able to make a bomb without any outside assistance.
But I guess it's just naive me looking at four solid years of completely bunk predictions and concluding that I should probably be suspicious of this year's predictions?
Post by: m1911owner on July 22, 2008, 05:11:19 PM
The 2006 article is talking about Iran being 2 years from being able to enrich uranium. That's a different thing altogether. And, unfortunately, they underestimated Iran, because they have had that capability for a while now.
I don't see any timeline mentioned in the 2007 article.
We are now in 2008. Iran has enrichment capability. That's not even slightly in doubt--they have shown pictures to the world, and have quite vocally refused to stop enrichment.
The "newspaper predictions" you've listed have basically been right on the money.
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 05:19:21 PM
Each of those stories refers to specific claims that once Iran reaches whatever point they were discussing, nuclear weapons would be inevitable.
They are quite clear in their warnings-bomb Iran now, or Iran will be at a point where it can get nuclear weapons and can't be stopped.
Iran had enrichment capability back when most of these articles were posted too. Again, the claims were specifically that Iran would be at the stage of making nuclear weapons.
To further prove the point, I already quoted exactly that language for you in each of the articles. Let me repost some of it, in choice parts, to show that it is not a warning of "different milestones":
Quote
Iran was less than two years away from reaching the point where it could enrich uranium, what she, and others, have termed "the point of no return"
If that's true, I guess there's no point doing anything now, because Iran is past the point of no return?
Oh wait, warnings continue to roll out....
Quote
Iran will reach "the point of no return" within the next 12 months
What is unambiguous about "point of no return" there?
Quote
Within three months Iran will reach a point of no return
Yet another specific (and spectacularly incorrect) prediction.
If these newspaper predictions are right on the money, Iran is already an irrevocably nuclear power.
Or does "point of no return" actually mean "point at which we can still reverse the program because there actually is a return"?
Post by: m1911owner on July 22, 2008, 05:39:20 PM
The only way now left to prevent them from constructing nuclear bombs appears to be to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
Post by: seeker_two on July 22, 2008, 05:53:42 PM
OK, I don't understand at all where you're coming from. You yourself are pointing out that we've let Iran progress to where they are well past the "point of no return."
The only way now left to prevent them from constructing nuclear bombs appears to be to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
The only way now left to prevent them from constructing nuclear bombs appears to be to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
OK....then what do we do with the 99.5 hours we have left over?......
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 05:59:46 PM
OK, I don't understand at all where you're coming from. You yourself are pointing out that we've let Iran progress to where they are well past the "point of no return."
The only way now left to prevent them from constructing nuclear bombs appears to be to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
The only way now left to prevent them from constructing nuclear bombs appears to be to bomb them back into the Stone Age.
Okay, first off, if there's a way to go back...it obviously was not the "point of no return."
Check through the press releases of all the people who said Iran would be there years ago-none of them are now saying "Iran has passed the point of no return!"
What I'm saying is that not only has Iran passed no such point, there never was any real evidence that it was headed there. If you look at all the dire warnings from years past that are now basically ignored, you can see that for yourself.
This whole issue is lots of hype, very little substance to back it up, in other words.
Post by: m1911owner on July 22, 2008, 06:20:27 PM
In any case, we have in fact passed the trigger points that people were warning about a few years ago. They have the self-contained technology--they are building their own centrifuges. They have the uranium.
"[A]ll the dire warnings from years past that are now basically ignored"
!! They haven't been ignored at all. There has been an acute awareness in the Bush administration that something desperately needed to be done. Unfortunately, that "something" was an Iraq-style invasion, and the constant attacks of Bush by liberals in this country made that an impossibility. So, they attempted to do what they could through "diplomacy", which has proven to be a miserable failure.What part of "thousands of second-generation centrifuges running day and night" do you not understand? Iran is proceeding full-speed-ahead to produce the 235U to build bombs. That's not "hype"--it's an acutely dangerous situation.
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 06:23:47 PM
Quote
What part of "thousands of second-generation centrifuges running day and night" do you not understand? Iran is proceeding full-speed-ahead to produce the 235U to build bombs. That's not "hype"--it's an acutely dangerous situation.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim-none. Iran is not now, and has not ever produced bomb grade material...none.
The only people who ever said Iran was going in this direction, are the same ones who said Iran would be producing bomb grade material within months. And guess what? They aren't all saying now "Iran already passed the point of no return!"....no, instead they're saying exactly what they said years ago: "Any day now folks, Iran is going to do it...because....we said so."
Of course they were wrong then, and there is no evidence to suggest that they're correct now.
But don't let that stop you-obviously the "word game" of making statements that are not true is enough to support a campaign to bomb Iran in your eyes.
Post by: m1911owner on July 22, 2008, 06:36:44 PM
Post by: m1911owner on July 22, 2008, 07:36:26 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 22, 2008, 09:08:34 PM
You know, this isn't a game like you seem to think it is. That's a genuine for-real madman out there running Iran, and very soon he's going to have real nucs. Is that really what you want?
1. Many experts are not clear whether Ahmadinejad is in charge or just a puppet for the Ayatollahs.
2. He's not really a madman, or at least those in charge of him are. They know they benefit from tension in the ME, but not from outright war [oil prices]. If they're building nukes, they're not going to use them, they're going to use the threat of these nukes to avoid being smacked by Israel.
3. Controversy exists on whether he IS building nukes.
So nobody is sure if Ahmadinejad is a madman, if he's in charge of IRan, or if he's building nukes.
Further, it is possible to resolve the issue peacefully - the Administration is doing so even as we speak.
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 09:10:40 PM
So nobody is sure if Ahmadinejad is a madman, if he's in charge of IRan, or if he's building nukes.
Further, it is possible to resolve the issue peacefully - the Administration is doing so even as we speak.
Nice Summary.
It's always important to add that, to whatever degree Ahmadinejad runs Iran, he clearly is not the commander of the military forces. It would not be his decision, under any circumstances, whether or not to use nuclear or any other weapons.
Post by: m1911owner on July 22, 2008, 09:22:41 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 22, 2008, 11:23:04 PM
Seriously, this is not a legitimate argument in any way, shape, or form.
It's a reductio ad hitlerum.
Post by: m1911owner on July 23, 2008, 06:44:00 AM
Did you learn nothing from Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, and Saddam Hussein, to mention a few?
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 24, 2008, 01:20:26 AM
Not every tyrant overseas is a threat to the United States. The Khmer Rouge and Saddam never threatened the United States.
Even among those tyrants that are opposed to the US, not everybody is a threat of such a magnitude that it justifies making fear of these tyrants the prime directive of all politics.
For example, Muamar Kaddafi [sp?] hates America, but everybody knows that he's just a little worthless bum, and not an actual threat to America.
MAYBE, just MAYBE Iran is an existential threat to Israel (which, last time I checked, wasn't a US state). This still doesn't justify making fear of Iran the overriding factor of US politics.
Besides which - nowhere does Ahmadinejad even approach the level of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or the Khmer Rouge.
As I said:
We are not sure he's crazy, we're not sure he's in charge, and we are not sure he's building a bomb.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 24, 2008, 04:11:32 AM
My argument is very , very simple:
Not every tyrant overseas is a threat to the United States. The Khmer Rouge and Saddam never threatened the United States.
Even among those tyrants that are opposed to the US, not everybody is a threat of such a magnitude that it justifies making fear of these tyrants the prime directive of all politics.
For example, Muamar Kaddafi [sp?] hates America, but everybody knows that he's just a little worthless bum, and not an actual threat to America.
MAYBE, just MAYBE Iran is an existential threat to Israel (which, last time I checked, wasn't a US state). This still doesn't justify making fear of Iran the overriding factor of US politics.
Besides which - nowhere does Ahmadinejad even approach the level of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or the Khmer Rouge.
As I said:
We are not sure he's crazy, we're not sure he's in charge, and we are not sure he's building a bomb.
Not every tyrant overseas is a threat to the United States. The Khmer Rouge and Saddam never threatened the United States.
Even among those tyrants that are opposed to the US, not everybody is a threat of such a magnitude that it justifies making fear of these tyrants the prime directive of all politics.
For example, Muamar Kaddafi [sp?] hates America, but everybody knows that he's just a little worthless bum, and not an actual threat to America.
MAYBE, just MAYBE Iran is an existential threat to Israel (which, last time I checked, wasn't a US state). This still doesn't justify making fear of Iran the overriding factor of US politics.
Besides which - nowhere does Ahmadinejad even approach the level of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or the Khmer Rouge.
As I said:
We are not sure he's crazy, we're not sure he's in charge, and we are not sure he's building a bomb.
Been reading Neville Chamberlain's writings?
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 24, 2008, 04:33:24 AM
This thread has already been Godwined.
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 24, 2008, 05:35:55 AM
Horrible movie, but to paraphrase The Peacemaker, I'm scared of the cat who wants ten nuclear bombs. I'm terrified of the guy who wants one. IIRC, Iran flares off more energy than they would produce from 'peaceful nuclear power'. They export oil, but import gasoline for goodness sake. This does not appear to me to be a state that takes a sane long term view of anything.
Does this warrant an opening of a third front on the WOT? No, certainly not by us. I'd welcome some heightened interest by our 'allies', however.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 24, 2008, 05:48:59 AM
But it's very clear that they're not anywhere near to the level of threat that the Soviets posed.
To which -and I said it before - the threat is insufficient to warrant turning all the resources of society to fighting them, or to justify being content living with the overgrown monstrosity that is the 'modern state'. W. F. Buckley's dictum does not apply to Iran.
They're not big, smart, or scary enough.
Post by: anygunanywhere on July 24, 2008, 05:50:58 AM
Although we looked on the soviet block countries as mad, they were quite sane and actually operated under that good old "we want to live" mantra.
North Korea pushed the envelope of MAD given that Kim Jong-Il is a narcissistic loon.
The MAD principle does not work once individuals who have no fear of sacrificing millions of lives for their crack at a few celestial virgins get their hands on a nuclear weapon.
Yes, Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, and the sole reason is Ahmadinejad. He is crazy.
Anygunanywhere
Post by: xavier fremboe on July 24, 2008, 06:10:28 AM
Look, there's no argument that Iran is financing terrorism and generally can do some nasty stuff.
But it's very clear that they're not anywhere near to the level of threat that the Soviets posed.
To which -and I said it before - the threat is insufficient to warrant turning all the resources of society to fighting them, or to justify being content living with the overgrown monstrosity that is the 'modern state'. W. F. Buckley's dictum does not apply to Iran.
They're not big, smart, or scary enough.
I think we're in agreement here, and I should have been clearer. I don't see a need for a third front utilizing American forces. I think it should be handled by regional powers. My point was that even with the Khaddafi analogy, Americans lost lives due to no one stepping up and actually solving the problem. We wouldn't be seeking NATO involvement to stop a nuclear El Salvador, would we? Well at least not in a pre-Obama era...
But it's very clear that they're not anywhere near to the level of threat that the Soviets posed.
To which -and I said it before - the threat is insufficient to warrant turning all the resources of society to fighting them, or to justify being content living with the overgrown monstrosity that is the 'modern state'. W. F. Buckley's dictum does not apply to Iran.
They're not big, smart, or scary enough.
Post by: m1911owner on July 24, 2008, 08:25:05 AM
But it's very clear that they're not anywhere near to the level of threat that the Soviets posed.
...
They're not big, smart, or scary enough.
...
They're not big, smart, or scary enough.
So, Neville, do you think you can pull off a diplomatic coup with him that will guarantee peace in our time?
Post by: m1911owner on July 24, 2008, 08:30:09 AM
This thread has already been Godwined.
Godwin only applies when it is an inapt comparison. Here we have a national leader who has promised to exterminate the Jews, and is proceeding at maximum speed to develop the materiel with which to carry out that promise.
Post by: m1911owner on July 24, 2008, 08:53:56 AM
MAYBE, just MAYBE Iran is an existential threat to Israel (which, last time I checked, wasn't a US state). This still doesn't justify making fear of Iran the overriding factor of US politics.
Neville, it looks like I should have read your posts more carefully before posting--I see that you've already posted your plan for peace in our time: Just let him have
That just might work.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 24, 2008, 09:18:14 AM
This thread has already been Godwined.
Godwin only applies when it is an inapt comparison. Here we have a national leader who has promised to exterminate the Jews, and is proceeding at maximum speed to develop the materiel with which to carry out that promise.
No, that is not true.
1. Ahmadinejad has never promised to exterminate all the Jews, he is at worst an enemy of Israel. There are Jews in Iran, and even in the Iranian parliament.
2. Israel possesses military superiority over Iran in any aspect, superiority so decisive that it simply does not require American help to deal with Iran. Israeli leadership, however, benefits vastly politically in both playing up the Iranian threat, and trying to make sure it's America that does the actual shooting.
3. Ahmadinejad is not calling the shots in Iran WRT the developement of nuclear weapons.
4. You may have noticed that I do not in any way suggest the Iranians are nice people. The Iranians, in my view, sponsor Islamic terrorism in the Middle-East for their profit (namely, high oil prices and political gain). They benefit hugely from there being instability and fear in the region - not just because it jacks up oil prices, but because it benefits them politically - but they do not benefit from war, because they'd be squashed like a bug. Their game is to rock the boat just enough, but never actually provoke anybody big. If they are seeking a nuke it's to give themselves more latitude in the boat-rocking, not to blow people up.
Arming Hezbollah? Yes.
Arming the insurgency in Iraq? Yes.
Attacking Israel or America with nukes? No.
Ahmadinejad may or may not be crazy, but the people who are behind him are most definitely not. They're shrewd politicians, and they don't want to die. They also know enough Islamic doctrine to know that they do not need to die in battle to gain the proverbial virgins (the Hadith is crystal-clear on this).
Let me say it again:
In any serious armed confrontation between Iran and any Westernized country, Iran would get it's a$$ sliced, diced, and handed back to it on a plate. America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia each could beat Iran in air, on the ground, and on the sea. Even Iraq pre-Invasion beat Iran. There's no contest.
What does this mean?
1.It means that diplomacy with Iran is possible, just like diplomacy with the USSR was possible (Reagan did it). America and the West are in a position of strength, and can afford diplomacy.
2.We on this forum are almost all conservatives (I use the term broadly, and include libertarian minarchism and libertarian anarcho-capitalism as conservative ideas). In the past, when the Soviets were around, many conservatives believed that the Soviet threat was a good enough justification to tolerate Big Government, and that dealing with foreign affairs was Priority One of our movement. However, my point is merely that Iran is NOT a threat of the magnitude of the Soviets. EVEN IF these people were once right, they are no longer so.
In my view, our objectives should be Change and Hope. Namely conservative change (eliminating spending, regulations, taxes, and gun control) and right-wing hope (that we can roll back the Welfare State and achieve Liberty in Our Lifetime).
I refuse to curl up like a little mewling puppy and let the fear of 'terrorism' and 'the Islamic threat' to distract me from my main objective, which is freedom.