0
livendive

illogical nuclear weapon stance?

Recommended Posts

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind the US throwing a tizzy about Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons, when we ourselves possess those same weapons?

Does anyone else think it looks like white, middle-class, suburban NRA members screaming that inner city blacks shouldn't be allowed to own guns?

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave, I've given this subject a lot of thought over the years. Yes, at first blush, it seems hypocritical. But, as you and I have each taught the children we've raised, sometimes the reality of life simply isn't fair.

This isn't about fairness. It's about reality. I'm perfectly willing to say to Iran, or N. Korea, etc.: "Because we can be trusted with nukes, and you can't." Now that may be unfair, but it's also reality. I'm not really worried about Russia or China going half-cocked with their nukes and using them offensively (i.e., as opposed to defensively). Possible? yeah, but not probable. I may not like the supersiliousness of the French and their government, but I don't consider their nukes a threat to world peace. I do consider nukes in N. Korea, or Iran, etc. to be a clear and present danger to world peace. I now hold my breath every time India & Pakistan get near the brink.

It would be wonderful to have a world without a single nuclear weapon. But that world doesn't exist, and it likely won't exist in our lifetimes. So, the inequality simply will have to exist because it reflects the realities of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind the US throwing a tizzy about Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons, when we ourselves possess those same weapons?



You need to do some more reading to educate yourself on this issue.

It's not about just possessing them. It's about what they are threatening to do with them once they get them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran is a tough issue nowadays. If they get their nukes and decided to use to those nukes towards pleasing Allah, then yes we are in deep shit. But the only way that anyone can prevent Iran from obtaining these nukes was if the entire world was on the same page as to how to deal with them (which they don't seem to be). The US will be making a huge mistake to open up a new war anytime soon only because they don't like the idea of Iran having the bomb.

On a different note, I'm not all that concerned about North Korea. I believe China has enough at stake towards their economic growth to not let North Korea run wild. Iran is a wild card though with no easy answers.


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It's not about just possessing them. It's about what they are threatening to do with them once they get them.



The US never disavowed making the first strike during the Cold War, and was moving to develope Star Wars, the ultimate first strike tool.

The reality is simple - nukes are more valuable the fewer nations have them. To those who have them.

Let's cut the childish notion that fairness is relevent in the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The theory of MAD is that both sides have equal capacity to counter-strike thus preventing (inhibiting) both sides from initiating a first-srike.

From the Soviet point of view, SDI was a first stike weapon because the "enemy" was eliminating the barrier to an initial first strike. In war games circles the best tactical choice for the Soviets was to launch their nukes first if the status quo changed. I.E. USA confirmed a working prototype for a space based ABM system.

This was also part of the reasoning behind the SALT I and SALT II (ABM) treaties.
"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind the US throwing a tizzy about Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons, when we ourselves possess those same weapons?

Does anyone else think it looks like white, middle-class, suburban NRA members screaming that inner city blacks shouldn't be allowed to own guns?

Blues,
Dave



In fairness the U.S. has not been screaming for the extermination of specific countries as Iran has with Isreal. Given Irans history I don't think it would be in the best interest of all concerned if they had such a capability. Using the gun analogy, I would not want some wife battering psycho with a history of random violence getting a gun.

Regarding the N.R.A. screaming that inner city blacks should't own guns, is that real or were you being faecetious? Sounds a bit extreme but again anything is possible.

Cheers,

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From another related article on msnbc.com today

Quote


Iran only has an experimental research program and it would need months to begin any large-scale enrichment.

"Nuclear research and development is part of Iran's national interests and sovereignty and won't give it up," he said.

Larijani's said Iran won't stop the research-scale uranium enrichment it began last month amid diplomatic efforts aimed at a possible compromise in negotiations with Russia and Europeans.

"(Nuclear) research and development will continue. We don't see any reason to suspend it... we are seeking to establish this technology at home," he said. "We have made good progress in nuclear research."

The U.S. and its allies should show "their good will," and "accept industrial scale (uranium enrichment) by Iran, accept nuclear research and development. Then, if they have any concerns, we will be ready to show flexibility in short term."



Right now it sounds like much to do about nothing. It's remarkably difficult to perform uranium enrichment with the intent of creating a weapon, and have the operation look as though it were involved in research and refinement for use in power plants or other industrial applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

From another related article on msnbc.com today

Quote


Iran only has an experimental research program and it would need months to begin any large-scale enrichment.

"Nuclear research and development is part of Iran's national interests and sovereignty and won't give it up," he said.

Larijani's said Iran won't stop the research-scale uranium enrichment it began last month amid diplomatic efforts aimed at a possible compromise in negotiations with Russia and Europeans.

"(Nuclear) research and development will continue. We don't see any reason to suspend it... we are seeking to establish this technology at home," he said. "We have made good progress in nuclear research."

The U.S. and its allies should show "their good will," and "accept industrial scale (uranium enrichment) by Iran, accept nuclear research and development. Then, if they have any concerns, we will be ready to show flexibility in short term."



Right now it sounds like much to do about nothing. It's remarkably difficult to perform uranium enrichment with the intent of creating a weapon, and have the operation look as though it were involved in research and refinement for use in power plants or other industrial applications.



??? Looks like North Korea did it without too much trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Right now it sounds like much to do about nothing. It's remarkably difficult to perform uranium enrichment with the intent of creating a weapon, and have the operation look as though it were involved in research and refinement for use in power plants or other industrial applications.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


??? Looks like North Korea did it without too much trouble.



And India.
And Pakistan.

All technology proliferates. Don't kid yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It's not about just possessing them. It's about what they are threatening to do with them once they get them.



Like the people who called for us to "glass-fucking-parking-lot" Afghanistan and Iraq?

Actually, my understanding is that the Iranians are officially saying they don't even plan to build nuclear weapons. Given that we have them, and we are the only country to have used them, I don't see where we have standing to deny another country developing them.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Do you personally want Iran to have nukes or is this merely for the sake of discussion?



It's just for the sake of discussion. I'd prefer that nobody have nukes.

As I said above, I, too, would prefer that nobody have nukes. But that's not going to happen. Academically perfect "fairness" would dictate that either nobody have nukes, or EVERYBODY who wants them has them. I know you don't want that either. So we're forced to have a real-world solution in which (with apologies to Orwell) even though all of the animals in the barnyard are equal, the pigs are a little more equal; and for the time being (with the exception of India & Pakistan) only they get the nukes. Unequal, unfair and intellectually dishonest, maybe. But it makes me sleep better at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Academically perfect "fairness" would dictate that either nobody have nukes, or EVERYBODY who wants them has them.



or everybody has them regardless of whether they want them or not

but then I'd want 2

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


It's not about just possessing them. It's about what they are threatening to do with them once they get them.



Like the people who called for us to "glass-fucking-parking-lot" Afghanistan and Iraq?



When has the US Government made such statements? Blowhards on internet forums aren't representatives of any nation.

I'm sure Iran only means to invasion proof itself, but it certainly is talking about doing a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When has the US Government made such statements? Blowhards on internet forums aren't representatives of any nation.

I'm sure Iran only means to invasion proof itself, but it certainly is talking about doing a lot more.



The Iranian Government is saying they only want to enrich uranium for power generation purposes.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The Iranian Government is saying they only want to enrich uranium for power generation purposes.



Yeah, but that's a pile of shit. Esp when Iranian clerics have called upon the Muslim world to nuke Israel, and the president has repeated that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Like I said - this has nothing to do with fairness. If I were them, I'd want nukes, and I'd tell these lies as propoganda and to stall until I could successfully detonate a test. Since I'm not them, I want it prevented from happening. My version of the world is better off that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Esp when Iranian clerics have called upon the Muslim world to nuke Israel,



True. Good thing we don't have any whackjob religious figures making absurd statements about foreign policy (Pat Robertson).

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Esp when Iranian clerics have called upon the Muslim world to nuke Israel,



True. Good thing we don't have any whackjob religious figures making absurd statements about foreign policy (Pat Robertson).



We both know that's not analogous.

Religious leaders play a significant role in the Iranian government. They play virtually no role here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Religious leaders play a significant role in the Iranian government. They play virtually no role here.



Re: the US, I think that varies from one Administration to another. Just to nitpick a bit, in the current Bush Admin, they do have a lot more influence than with just about any other Admin in the last 40 yrs or so.
(But I agree with all of your essential points)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

...Star Wars, the ultimate first strike tool.



Say what? I thought this was to be a defensive, anti-ballistic missle system. Please explain.



Jim you don't really believe that Star Wars was a defensive tool do you? :P

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0