Oh god, now Obama wants to apply gun control logic to nuclear weapons...

[Tallpine]

Everyone knows that trolls live under bridges ... 

The Politics forum is a bridge?

Yes, and you are trip-trapping on it 

[De Selby]

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?

[Manedwolf]

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?

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.

[De Selby]

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?

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?

[Manedwolf]

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?

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.

[De Selby]

Please tell me you see the contradiction between this:

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:

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?

[Manedwolf]

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.

[De Selby]

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.

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?

[m1911owner]

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.

[De Selby]

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.

[m1911owner]

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 produced sufficient bomb-grade 235U to be able to make nuclear bombs?

[De Selby]

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.

[m1911owner]

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.

Well then, sir, I would suggest that you are either incredibly naïve or willfully mendacious.

[De Selby]

Here're just some of the dire predictions that turned out to be completely false:

2007:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1567529/We-must-bomb-Iran%2C-says-US-Republican-guru.html

"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

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"

2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/27/politics.iran

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

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

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

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?

[m1911owner]

The stories you quote are referring to different milestones.  The 2004 quote is speaking of Iran acquiring the technology within a year to be able to continue their nuclear program without outside assistance.  That means that the ability to actually produce a bomb is at some unspecified time past that year.  The 2005 quotes are talking about the same thing, except that the actual Israeli story (ynetnews) has the timetable at 3 months, which is consistent with the one year estimate the year before.

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.

[De Selby]

m1911,

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":

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....

Iran will reach "the point of no return" within the next 12 months

What is unambiguous about "point of no return" there?

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"?

[m1911owner]

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.

[seeker_two]

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.

OK....then what do we do with the 99.5 hours we have left over?......

[De Selby]

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.

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.

[m1911owner]

You're playing word games.  "Point of no return" is an expression that people use to describe a situation that has been coming increasing dangerous.  The people quoted are not mathemeticians presenting results of a mathematical proofs.

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.

[De Selby]

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.

[m1911owner]

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?

[m1911owner]

.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[De Selby]

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.