[Hawkeye_a]

Given what we know about this 'issue'.... enriching uranium, ballistic technology, threatening a member of the U.N., supporting terrorist organizations, etc....

I'm curious to know what you guys in the PL think about this situation and how it will unfold in 2009 ?

Personally, the situation worries me.

Just a small request to keep this thread on rails and 'civil'... no name calling and such.

Discuss.

[Big Mac]

It looks like neither the world community nor the United States will have the will to stop Iran from going nuclear. People would laugh at me if I told them my end game Iranian scenarios, though.

[SpaceMonkey]

Given what I've read about the state of their enrichment, I think it is unlikely that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon in 2009 (this assumes they will not get weapons-grade material by other means, which is by no means out of the question).

2009 should be about laying the diplomatic groundwork to avert proliferation cascades elsewhere in the region and/or basically call Iran's bluff about the "peaceful' nature of their program (such as positive movement toward consensus around an international nuclear fuel bank). What worries me is 2010-2011.

[olePigeon]

In other news, 67 computers went missing from Los Alamos.

Officials from New Mexico's Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory have fessed up to having only just realised that 67 of its computers were missing, with no less than 13 of them having disappeared over the past year alone.

I'd lay bets it was China. The U.S. seems to do absolutely nothing whenever China is caught red handed stealing our information. Wouldn't surprise me if China sells our own nuclear plans to Iran.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

In other news, 67 computers went missing from Los Alamos.



I'd lay bets it was China. The U.S. seems to do absolutely nothing whenever China is caught red handed stealing our information. Wouldn't surprise me if China sells our own nuclear plans to Iran.

Probably China. Although they probably got quite a bit of our nuclear info from A.Q. Khan in Pakistan. (He didn't sell it to the Chinese, but he did sell it to the North Koreans who probably "gave" it to the Chinese.) Khan is also the one who gave our know-how to the Iranians. I'd love to see US clandestine forces swoop in and perform an "extraordinary rendition" on Khan. Through his proliferation actions, he is/will be responsible for a lot more damage to the West, and the United State in particular, than anyone we nab/bed in response to the 9/11 attacks.

[Warren Pease]

I'm concerned that the US, while discouraging Iran away from nuclear power, is bringing more of it to the Middle East, and in Iran's backyard.

Atoms for What? The U.S.-UAE Nuclear Accord

The pact marks an astonishing diplomatic journey for the UAE and Shaikh Abdullah. Ten years ago in 1999, the shaikh, a son of the then ruler and a half-brother of the current UAE president, was an honored guest during a visit to Pakistan's unsafeguarded Kahuta uranium enrichment and missile facility. While there, he saw the prefabricated structures built in Sharjah, a member sheikhdom of the UAE, which were hiding the production line of the nuclear-capable Ghauri missile from U.S. satellites passing overhead. For a quarter century, until 2004, the UAE helped Pakistan elude Western export controls by serving as a vital transit point for Pakistan's purchases of nuclear-weapon-related parts and manufacturing equipment.
...
The pace of forgiveness of the UAE's past indiscretions is remarkable. Perhaps coincidentally, three days before the signing of the 123 Agreement, the State Department announced sanctions on thirteen individuals and three private companies for their involvement in what it calls the "A. Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network," including Dr. Khan himself. Khan was Shaikh Abdullah's host and guide during the 1999 visit to Kahuta. Apart from building Pakistan's enrichment facility and its first nuclear weapons, using material transshipped through Dubai, Khan is also credited with constructing an enrichment plant in China, Pakistan's first act of proliferation. Links with Iran and Libya came later. Given this background, and the central role of a senior Dubai immigration officer who controlled the principal Dubai trading company serving as a conduit, it is surprising that the only UAE links in the State Department notice were retired British citizen Peter Griffin (now living in France) and his son Paul, who operated from Dubai for many years.

[Hawkeye_a]

As posted in this thread

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This should make this... interesting to say the least.
FT.com / Middle East / Politics & Society - Iran holds enough uranium for bomb

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/wo...e.html?_r=1&hp

All this while the international community sits on the side lines and twiddles it's thumbs and Obama talks about no-pre-condition diplomacy.

What concerns me most is the proliferation of these weapons in neighboring Persian/Arab states with no democracy or representative governments. These states, too, see Iran as a threat in the region right now, and would probably arm themselves.

The real problem arises when these "countries" get groups like Hez and Hamas commanding major portions of the political arena.... and start to point these weapons towards the rest of the world... specifically Israel(which most if not all of these countries do not even recognize) Combine that with the suicidal nature of these groups taking refuge in the muslim world, and it becomes next-to-impossible to negotiate.

While most people are worried about their jobs and loosing their homes the world over, this nuclear development has been going on covertly hand-in-hand with development of ballistic technology.

Looking back, Iraq(Saddam) was contained and Afghanistan was stuck in the stone age. But here, we have a much larger beast, relatively speaking.

2009 looks a lot more scary than 2008 did, to me.

[Splinter]

June 7th 1981 Osiraq - Iraq
September 6th 2007 Al Kebab - Syria
March - December 2009 Natanz - Iran?

[vmarks]

UN officials told the Financial Times that Iran has produced enough uranium to build a nuclear bomb.

They said Iran had accumulated more than one tonne of low enriched uranium hexafluoride at a facility in Natanz.

If such a quantity were further enriched it could produce more than 20kg of fissile material – enough for a bomb.

“It appears that Iran has walked right up to the threshold of having enough low enriched uranium to provide enough raw material for a single bomb,” said Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency


---

So, either the world will live with a nuclear-weapon ready Iran able to carry out the threats it has made against whole countries, or some brave country will have to stand up and take action.

That's 2009.

[nonhuman]

So what is the best way to deal with this? We could revert to a Cold War posture, aim some nukes at Iran, and hope that MAD will be enough of a deterent to keep them in line. We could attack and try to take out their nuclear capability before they ever have a chance to use it. Or we could just trust them to be responsible members of the global community.

Option three seems unlikely to work. Option two opens us up to the risk that, in the midst of war Iran might manage to either use their nuclear materials to destroy some valuable target, or might conveniently 'lose' them putting us in a position of essentially knowing that someone has a bomb and that someone most likely isn't a big fan of the US or Israel.

The only way in which I can see a military solution working is if we could be absolutely certain that Iran's nuclear materials and capacity was utterly destroyed in the very first attack. Since it's probably impossible that we could launch any attack without giving them enough advance warning to do something horrible (maybe a submarine strike would be quick enough?), I'm forced to think that MAD is the way to go here: we just make it known that there is an absolute 100% chance that we will wipe them from the face of the Earth if they, or anyone we can reasonably think is connected to them, initiates a nuclear attack.

The key, I think, is that we let them know we'll destroy them even if the attack originates from someone else whom we can reasonably infer may have gotten their nuclear materials from Iran (of course anyone else complicit in the attack goes as well).

[Kerrigan]

I trust that Israel will take care of this problem on its own, without the blessing of the US.

[Big Mac]

But why should Israel again be compelled to do the dirty work that the rest of the free world doesn't want to touch?

[RhymesWithOrange]

Iran has a right to build nukuler power plants.

I'd be more worried about Pakistan which could go rogue with a Taliban coup.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by RhymesWithOrange 

Iran has a right to build nukuler power plants.

I'd be more worried about Pakistan which could go rogue with a Taliban coup.

Nobody's talking about nuclear power plants here. We now know that Iran has sufficient materials to build a nuclear bomb and estimates are that they are about 1.5 years away from building one. That's what we're talking about.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But why should Israel again be compelled to do the dirty work that the rest of the free world doesn't want to touch?

Because people want to maintain the illusion that they're somehow being liberal and open-minded while coddling the various totalitarian theocracies in the Middle East and simultaneously decrying the one real democracy as an evil, racist, genocidal, terrorist state.

I suppose as long as you're going to put up with cognative dissonance you may as well put it to good use.

[RhymesWithOrange]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Nobody's talking about nuclear power plants here. We now know that Iran has sufficient materials to build a nuclear bomb and estimates are that they are about 1.5 years away from building one. That's what we're talking about.

Hmmmm...where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, Iraq

[nonhuman]

Every major news outlet?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But why should Israel again be compelled to do the dirty work that the rest of the free world doesn't want to touch?

Why is a nuclear Iran a problem to be resolved by "the rest of the free world"? Why isn't it a problem to be resolved by those countries in the immediate vicinity of Iran that could possibly be hurt by an Iranian nuclear weapon? A nuclear Iran is just as much a threat, if not more of a threat, to the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia and the Sunni-dominated countries of the Middle East than it is to Israel. You can be damn sure that if Iran succeeded in "wiping Israel off the map" they would then turn their eyes to Saudi Arabia to reclaim what they perceive to be the Shi'a claim to the practice/interpretation of Islam. But again, why is any of this a problem of "the rest of the free world"?

The "rest of the free world", including Israel, didn't do anything when both India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons so why should you expect them to do something to Iran when the country only hints at building a nuclear weapon. Why should the threat of one country possibly doing something necessitate action on the part of the free world when the free world chose to do nothing when India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So what is the best way to deal with this? We could revert to a Cold War posture, aim some nukes at Iran, and hope that MAD will be enough of a deterent to keep them in line. We could attack and try to take out their nuclear capability before they ever have a chance to use it. Or we could just trust them to be responsible members of the global community.

Option three seems unlikely to work. Option two opens us up to the risk that, in the midst of war Iran might manage to either use their nuclear materials to destroy some valuable target, or might conveniently 'lose' them putting us in a position of essentially knowing that someone has a bomb and that someone most likely isn't a big fan of the US or Israel.

The only way in which I can see a military solution working is if we could be absolutely certain that Iran's nuclear materials and capacity was utterly destroyed in the very first attack. Since it's probably impossible that we could launch any attack without giving them enough advance warning to do something horrible (maybe a submarine strike would be quick enough?), I'm forced to think that MAD is the way to go here: we just make it known that there is an absolute 100% chance that we will wipe them from the face of the Earth if they, or anyone we can reasonably think is connected to them, initiates a nuclear attack.

The key, I think, is that we let them know we'll destroy them even if the attack originates from someone else whom we can reasonably infer may have gotten their nuclear materials from Iran (of course anyone else complicit in the attack goes as well).

Why should we (I am assuming you are referring to the United States military) threaten Iran to be "wiped from the face of the Earth" if they attempt a nuclear attack on another country? Why do you think it is up to the United States to be the tough-guy enforcer in the Middle East?

Do you think this policy of retaliation (wiping form the face of the earth the attacking country) applies to India, Pakistan, and North Korea as well? Do you think the United States make it known to these countries that we will completely destroy them if they attack another country that is not the United States? The reason I ask is that I am trying to determine if you think the United States should play this role of tough-guy enforcer with every nuclear-armed country in the world or with just Iran. You make bold grandiose statements about what the United States should do in regards to a nuclear attack by Iran but I don't recall you making similar statements when it was discovered both India, Pakistan, and North Korea had actually tested nuclear weapons. (Forgive me if you did make such bold, grandiose statements about the United States wiping off the face of the earth India or Pakistan or North Korea. I don't recall them.)

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Why should the threat of one country possibly doing something necessitate action on the part of the free world when the free world chose to do nothing when India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons?

Don't forget North Korea, which like Pakistan, could have a power struggle for control of the country on it's hands.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Nobody's talking about nuclear power plants here. We now know that Iran has sufficient materials to build a nuclear bomb and estimates are that they are about 1.5 years away from building one. That's what we're talking about.

And . . . so what? So what if Iran builds a nuclear weapon? That whole region is already destabilized as it is, an Iranian super-power might just bring some stability and order to the greater Middle East.

Again I have to ask, where were all these voices calling for the United States to threaten destruction of India or Pakistan or North Korea if they used a nuclear weapon on some other country that is NOT the United States? Why is the possibility of Iran getting a nuclear weapon and possibly attacking Israel argued to be of greater concern to the United States than India and Pakistan attacking one another (who currently have nuclear weapons and currently have a low-intensity battle going along sections of their border in Kashmir that is now entering its second decade of conflict)? We are allies with both India and Pakistan--Remember, Pakistan is one of our best allies in the War on Terror according to former President Bush--yet I have heard no claims in these forums about the United States taking the role of threatening to wipe either country off the face of the earth if one of those countries initiated a nuclear attack on the opposing nation. So, what makes the situation with Iran and Israel in the Middle East so special that brings out such strong rhetoric?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Why should we (I am assuming you are referring to the United States military) threaten Iran to be "wiped from the face of the Earth" if they attempt a nuclear attack on another country? Why do you think it is up to the United States to be the tough-guy enforcer in the Middle East?

I think it's our responsibility and perogative to ensure that we are not at risk of nuclear attack. As you may recall, Iran isn't exactly all that peachy keen on the US. For them to have nuclear weapons puts us at risk. It also puts our allies at risk, especially those in the region.

Mutually Assured Destruction, as I stated above, is one possible approach to this threat and, given the circumstances, I believe it is the best one. The primary motivation is ensuring the safety of the people of the United States, not some need to 'be the tough-guy enforcer in the Middle East'. It's not a threat, it's an announcement of our retaliatory policy towards a nuclear strike.

Do you think this policy of retaliation (wiping form the face of the earth the attacking country) applies to India, Pakistan, and North Korea as well? Do you think the United States make it known to these countries that we will completely destroy them if they attack another country that is not the United States? The reason I ask is that I am trying to determine if you think the United States should play this role of tough-guy enforcer with every nuclear-armed country in the world or with just Iran. You make bold grandiose statements about what the United States should do in regards to a nuclear attack by Iran but I don't recall you making similar statements when it was discovered both India, Pakistan, and North Korea had actually tested nuclear weapons. (Forgive me if you did make such bold, grandiose statements about the United States wiping off the face of the earth India or Pakistan or North Korea. I don't recall them.)

Yes, I do think that. Again, not because I think the US should be any sort of world police force, but rather because nuclear weapons are a massive threat. Once nuclear weapons come into the picture war essentially becomes unthinkable as the stakes become existential. For this reason it is the responsibility of any and all nuclear powers to work towards ensuring that those weapons are never used. If they are, what is the appropriate response? Do we give them a slap on the wrist and trust that they won't do it again? Do we depend on beaurocratic process to somehow stop them? Do we go in and remove their nuclear capabilities? Do we destroy them?

If you can think of a better solution than MAD, I welcome it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Don't forget North Korea, which like Pakistan, could have a power struggle for control of the country on it's hands.

I didn't forget North Korea and their test. But, after their test, the six-party nations that had been working on North Korea to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure kicked up a notch their rhetoric and diplomacy in regards to North Korea's possession/use of nuclear weapons. Whereas nothing of a similar nature happened with India and Pakistan.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I think it's our responsibility and perogative to ensure that we are not at risk of nuclear attack. As you may recall, Iran isn't exactly all that peachy keen on the US. For them to have nuclear weapons puts us at risk. It also puts our allies at risk, especially those in the region.

Mutually Assured Destruction, as I stated above, is one possible approach to this threat and, given the circumstances, I believe it is the best one. The primary motivation is ensuring the safety of the people of the United States, not some need to 'be the tough-guy enforcer in the Middle East'. It's not a threat, it's an announcement of our retaliatory policy towards a nuclear strike.

But you said, "we just make it known that there is an absolute 100% chance that we will wipe them from the face of the Earth if they, or anyone we can reasonably think is connected to them, initiates a nuclear attack."

And now you are saying the reason for this stance is to ensure "the safety of the people of the United States". But you didn't say that in your initial post. You said the United States should threaten to retaliate if they initiate any kind of attack. And that's what I am trying to get at. I am trying to get at why you think any sort of nuclear attack by Iran on another country would necessitate a response from the United States? If Iran succeeded in attacking the United States with a nuclear weapon I would be all for the United States retaliating and turning their country into a glass parking lot. But you are positing that the United States should retaliate against an Iranian nuclear attack regardless of which country Iran attacks. And that is what I am trying to get at: Why do you think it is up to the United States to establish the threat of destruction against Iran and not other countries? Why shouldn't the threat of destruction come from Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Israel instead of the United States? Why do you think the United States should take on this role of tough-guy enforcer, by threatening Iran with retaliation if they attack some country other than the United States, and not other countries?

[nonhuman]

I guess I was unclear. I thought it would be obvious that I was talking about American security. What I meant was an attack against the US or against our allies.

I'm not sure I would necessarily oppose a blanket policy such as this in regards to any nuclear attack against anyone, but in such a case it would have to be a multi-lateral agreement between multiple (or all?) nuclear powers.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I think it's our responsibility and perogative to ensure that we are not at risk of nuclear attack. As you may recall, Iran isn't exactly all that peachy keen on the US. For them to have nuclear weapons puts us at risk. It also puts our allies at risk, especially those in the region.

Mutually Assured Destruction, as I stated above, is one possible approach to this threat and, given the circumstances, I believe it is the best one. The primary motivation is ensuring the safety of the people of the United States, not some need to 'be the tough-guy enforcer in the Middle East'. It's not a threat, it's an announcement of our retaliatory policy towards a nuclear strike.

If you can think of a better solution than MAD, I welcome it.

Just as a note, Mutually Assured Destruction only works between countries with equally powerful nuclear arsenals. That applies to the United States and Russia and maybe Great Britain. The doctrine of MAD has no deterrent effect whatsoever on a country with less than equal nuclear capabilities because the less-well-armed country knows there is asymmetry in the conflict. If Iran initiates a nuclear attack on the United States, it will not be Mutually Assured Destruction rather Single Assured Destruction. (Ha! It will be SAD.) Parts of the United States would be destroyed by a nuclear attack from Iran but a much larger part of the country would be fine. Whereas if we retaliate with a nuclear strike again Iran, we really could turn their entire country into a glass parking lot. And they know it. So, your argument for a MAD doctrine as a deterrent for a nuclear-capable Iran seems sub-optimal.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I guess I was unclear. I thought it would be obvious that I was talking about American security. What I meant was an attack against the US or against our allies.

Well, threatening nuclear retaliation against a nuclear attack on the United States is a WHOLE lot different than threatening nuclear retaliation against a nuclear attack on an ally of the United States. I don't think the United States should ever commit to using its nuclear arsenal except to defend, or in retaliation for, a direct attack on the United States. I do not think we should use our nuclear arsenal as a threat to ensure another country's safety. These weapons are so powerful and so dangerous they should be used only in response to a direct nuclear attack, or attempted attack, on the United States.

If Iran succeeded in launching a nuclear attack against the United States I think we should retaliate with nuclear weapons.
If Iran succeeded in launching a nuclear attack against an ally of the United States, I think we should NOT retaliate with nuclear weapons (but still retaliate in some way).

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Just as a note, Mutually Assured Destruction only works between countries with equally powerful nuclear arsenals. That applies to the United States and Russia and maybe Great Britain. The doctrine of MAD has no deterrent effect whatsoever on a country with less than equal nuclear capabilities because the less-well-armed country knows there is asymmetry in the conflict. If Iran initiates a nuclear attack on the United States, it will not be Mutually Assured Destruction rather Single Assured Destruction. (Ha! It will be SAD.) Parts of the United States would be destroyed by a nuclear attack from Iran but a much larger part of the country would be fine. Whereas if we retaliate with a nuclear strike again Iran, we really could turn their entire country into a glass parking lot. And they know it. So, your argument for a MAD doctrine as a deterrent for a nuclear-capable Iran seems sub-optimal.

Good point. The idea, though, that we'd fight fire with fire and boy are you screwed, still stands, I think.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Well, threatening nuclear retaliation against a nuclear attack on the United States is a WHOLE lot different than threatening nuclear retaliation against a nuclear attack on an ally of the United States. I don't think the United States should ever commit to using its nuclear arsenal except to defend, or in retaliation for, a direct attack on the United States. I do not think we should use our nuclear arsenal as a threat to ensure another country's safety. These weapons are so powerful and so dangerous they should be used only in response to a direct nuclear attack, or attempted attack, on the United States.

If Iran succeeded in launching a nuclear attack against the United States I think we should retaliate with nuclear weapons.
If Iran succeeded in launching a nuclear attack against an ally of the United States, I think we should NOT retaliate with nuclear weapons (but still retaliate in some way).

Then what's the point of an alliance? Why should anyone bother being an ally of the US if we're not going to help defend them? If they're a nuclear power in their own right, then fine, let them take care of the nuclear response. But we need to support our allies, or else they aren't really allies.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Good point. The idea, though, that we'd fight fire with fire and boy are you screwed, still stands, I think.

Absolutely. The idea of overwhelming retaliation is a powerful threat. But I don't think we (the United States) should be invoking that threat for a nuclear response to an attack on a country other than the United States.

I think every country on the planet knows that the United States would respond in kind to a nuclear attack, as we should. What concerns me is what you and other seem to advocate, namely that the United States would respond with nuclear weapons to a nuclear attack by Iran on a country that is not the United States. That is where my disagreement with you, and others, lies.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Then what's the point of an alliance? Why should anyone bother being an ally of the US if we're not going to help defend them? If they're a nuclear power in their own right, then fine, let them take care of the nuclear response. But we need to support our allies, or else they aren't really allies.

There are no alliances, only politically convenient/expedient interests.* And our interests in the Middle East revolve around oil. If it weren't for the need to buy Middle Eastern oil, and more importantly, have Saudi Arabia by our debt in exchange for us buying their oil, we wouldn't be there.


*I think it was von Clausewitz** who first postulated this idea about inter-national relations when he said, "there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests."


**Oops. Wikipedia says this quote is from Lord Palmerston, major 19th-century political figure in Great Britain. Carl von Clausewitz is who we attribute the saying, "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means."

[nonhuman]

I'm pretty sure the State Deptartment would disagree with that...

ETA: Publically, at least.

[Hawkeye_a]

There is a difference between nations that denounce violence and terrorism and ones who openly support it.
There's a difference between just having nuclear weapons, and threatening to wipe a country off the map and trying to acquire nuclear capabilities. The stated goals/doctrines and allies of these countries speak for themselves.

As mentioned before India and Pakistan, although enemies were/are both allies of the U.S. (There were sanctions if i remember correctly)

Now this, is a different situation....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...Cu-R3fjgFqMivA

What happens if a proxy organization "somehow" gets a hold of this weapon ?

The other Arab states in the vicinity, do not have the technology know-how to develop the ballistics or warheads and would want to purchase these weapons... which can easily be deterred (not selling to them).

India and Pakistan have been in conflict for well over 2 decades, they have had 4 wars if m not mistaken. but neither threatened to wipe the other off the map (at the head of state level).
But threatening the existence of an entire state and then building the capability to achieve that goal is, imo, a far more serious thing.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

There is a difference between nations that denounce violence and terrorism and ones who openly support it.
There's a difference between just having nuclear weapons, and threatening to wipe a country off the map and trying to acquire nuclear capabilities. The stated goals/doctrines and allies of these countries speak for themselves.

As mentioned before India and Pakistan, although enemies were/are both allies of the U.S. (There were sanctions if i remember correctly)

Now this, is a different situation....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...Cu-R3fjgFqMivA

What happens if a proxy organization "somehow" gets a hold of this weapon ?

The other Arab states in the vicinity, do not have the technology know-how to develop the ballistics or warheads and would want to purchase these weapons... which can easily be deterred (not selling to them).

India and Pakistan have been in conflict for well over 2 decades, they have had 4 wars if m not mistaken. but neither threatened to wipe the other off the map (at the head of state level).
But threatening the existence of an entire state and then building the capability to achieve that goal is, imo, a far more serious thing.

All of this is true. But you have yet to make an argument as to why it is up to the United States to stop Iran from doing so. Why is it the business of the United States to threaten retaliation against Iran because they threaten an attack on Israel?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Just as a note, Mutually Assured Destruction only works between countries with equally powerful nuclear arsenals. That applies to the United States and Russia and maybe Great Britain. The doctrine of MAD has no deterrent effect whatsoever on a country with less than equal nuclear capabilities because the less-well-armed country knows there is asymmetry in the conflict. If Iran initiates a nuclear attack on the United States, it will not be Mutually Assured Destruction rather Single Assured Destruction. (Ha! It will be SAD.) Parts of the United States would be destroyed by a nuclear attack from Iran but a much larger part of the country would be fine. Whereas if we retaliate with a nuclear strike again Iran, we really could turn their entire country into a glass parking lot. And they know it. So, your argument for a MAD doctrine as a deterrent for a nuclear-capable Iran seems sub-optimal.

I agree with you, but for a different reason. IMO, MAD doesn't work in this case because you're putting your queen at risk for a bishop. MAD means that the US gets a nuclear attack, creating havoc bringing down a superpower and the rest of the global economy with it. This economic "equalization" will embolden China and Russia who have been in engaged in "friendship agreements" against "perceived US hegemony" since 2001. Look for the relationship between Russia and Iran to continue strengthening as it has been. Look for China to begin cashing in their US bonds/securities soon. IMO, this will be a tell-tale sign of global movement.

The last thing we want is an arms race in the Middle East. We've spent a great many US lives trying to bring some stability to the region (publicly) and Obama has increased troop numbers in Afghanistan while maintaining a substantial presence in Iraq. What do you think will happen to these US assets in the event of a nuclear Iran? Do you really think the US invaded Iraq for WMDs we can't find? This is a struggle for a major part of the globe and the one who fortifies this region has strategic military staging grounds for the next hundred years and a wealth of resources from which to engage it. Furthermore, who do you think a nuclear Iran will point their nukes to? The fact of the matter is that Israel will indeed respond to a nuclear Iran and this will spark WWIII. Period. Dogs and cats sleeping together... mass hysteria.

This world will come to a head of ideals. It's not a matter of "if", but "when". We can rail on US imperialism until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that human nature is imperialistic. The powers-that-be in the US know it, Syria knows it, Iran knows it, Russia knows it, hell even Cuba knows it. Countries are pledging their allegiance. A nuclear Iran will be the beginning of the end. There's a difference between "tough guy" and "survivalist". We'd better figure that out.

[Big Mac]

Those who are interested should google keywords: Persia Yoma 10a

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I agree with you, but for a different reason. IMO, MAD doesn't work in this case because you're putting your queen at risk for a bishop. MAD means that the US gets a nuclear attack, creating havoc bringing down a superpower and the rest of the global economy with it. This economic "equalization" will embolden China and Russia who have been in engaged in "friendship agreements" against "perceived US hegemony" since 2001. Look for the relationship between Russia and Iran to continue strengthening as it has been. Look for China to begin cashing in their US bonds/securities soon. IMO, this will be a tell-tale sign of global movement.

The last thing we want is an arms race in the Middle East. We've spent a great many US lives trying to bring some stability to the region (publicly) and Obama has increased troop numbers in Afghanistan while maintaining a substantial presence in Iraq. What do you think will happen to these US assets in the event of a nuclear Iran? Do you really think the US invaded Iraq for WMDs we can't find? This is a struggle for a major part of the globe and the one who fortifies this region has strategic military staging grounds for the next hundred years and a wealth of resources from which to engage it. Furthermore, who do you think a nuclear Iran will point their nukes to? The fact of the matter is that Israel will indeed respond to a nuclear Iran and this will spark WWIII. Period. Dogs and cats sleeping together... mass hysteria.

This world will come to a head of ideals. It's not a matter of "if", but "when". We can rail on US imperialism until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that human nature is imperialistic. The powers-that-be in the US know it, Syria knows it, Iran knows it, Russia knows it, hell even Cuba knows it. Countries are pledging their allegiance. A nuclear Iran will be the beginning of the end. There's a difference between "tough guy" and "survivalist". We'd better figure that out.

I am all for letting American hegemony fall by the wayside and for letting the United States become a less significant country no longer looked up to or feared by most of the other countries of the world. I would rather see the United States become a less significant player in the geopolitical scheme than have so much of our political/industrial energies focused on maintaining the American empire.

I see no reason why we should be fighting to maintain control of strategic interests in the Middle East.* I think all the money we spend on trying to gain/maintain control over that region would be better spent investing in renewable energy resources with immediate benefits (like wind and solar power) while we build out a new, modern nuclear-power infrastructure in this country. Within 20-30 years we could wean our nation off of Middle East oil and tell every country in that region to f*ck off. Nothing would make me happier. And if Iran goes after Israel and Saudi Arabia, fine; Let the Israelis and the Saudis fight to defend their country. I don't want any more American soldiers dying in the Middle East because we as a nation feel we need to maintain our identity as a major world power.

So, you keep arguing to have America try and be/stay a hegemonic empire. I will accept the fact that all empires fail and will advocate for a long-term plan for a more modest role for the United States on the world stage. One of us will be right in the long-term. I think I have history on my side. Although, if your approach is followed, it might get the United States another century of empire and hegemonic power. But the American Empire WILL come to an end someday; It's not a matter of if", but "when". (Thanks for the quote.)


*Although, to your credit, your statement about fortifying the region for strategic and resource purposes sounds like something straight out of a PNAC position paper.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Those who are interested should google keywords: Persia Yoma 10a

Ooh, end-time prophecies from a Jewish theological perspective. Yippee!


In some perverse way, I do hope Israel is involved in a nuclear exchange with Iran. All those end-time believers, in all three Abrahamic faiths, will be sorely disappointed when the great battle between good and evil takes place and the world isn't destroyed afterwards (whether physically or metaphorically/spiritually). I think a nuclear conflagration in Israel would be worth it as it would give me a lifetime to say "I told you so" against the fundamentalist believers in al three Abrahamic faiths.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Ooh, end-time prophecies from a Jewish theological perspective. Yippee!

"Yippee! "? That's some argument you've got there. And just when I was starting to tolerate you, too. A real pity.

In some perverse way, I do hope Israel is involved in a nuclear exchange with Iran. All those end-time believers, in all three Abrahamic faiths, will be sorely disappointed when the great battle between good and evil takes place and the world isn't destroyed afterwards (whether physically or metaphorically/spiritually). I think a nuclear conflagration in Israel would be worth it as it would give me a lifetime to say "I told you so" against the fundamentalist believers in al three Abrahamic faiths.

Your perverse desires aside, perhaps others will find it interesting that 1800-1500 years ago the Talmudic sages were forecasting a decisive war between Rome and Persia over Israel, specifically as the prelude to the Messianic Era. And now, here we are, talking about a nuclear showdown with Persia over Israel and the potential for WWIII. But go ahead and mock all you want.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your perverse desires aside, perhaps others will find it interesting that 1800-1500 years ago the Talmudic sages were forecasting a decisive war between Rome and Persia over Israel, specifically as the prelude to the Messianic Era. And now, here we are, talking about a nuclear showdown with Persia over Israel. But go ahead and mock all you want.

So, have scholars "interpreted" this forecast to mean that the United States would take the place of Rome in prophecy? or does that idea (Rome=United States) just provide a nice meaningful fitting of current circumstances into a pre-conceived ideational framework so you and your fellow believers can continue to hold out hope for the first appearance of your Messiah?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, have scholars "interpreted" this forecast to mean that the United States would take the place of Rome in prophecy?

Rome, not in the sense of the defunct Roman Empire, but Rome as symbol of the West and Christendom, the last great bastion of which is the United States.

or does that idea (Rome=United States) just provide a nice meaningful fitting of current circumstances into a pre-conceived ideational framework so you and your fellow believers can continue to hold out hope for the return of your Messiah?

Not the return, no. That would apply to Christianity. I'm a Jew. Have you shown that you don't know the difference between the two?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your perverse desires aside, perhaps others will find it interesting that 1800-1500 years ago the Talmudic sages were forecasting a decisive war between Rome and Persia over Israel, specifically as the prelude to the Messianic Era. And now, here we are, talking about a nuclear showdown with Persia over Israel. But go ahead and mock all you want.

Just to take you seriously for a minute. I am assuming these Talmudic prophecies were made involving Rome and Persia because, at the time, they were the two biggest known military/political powers in the Levant. So, if you were to "interpret" the prophecy for modern times, wouldn't the battle over Israel be between the United States and Russia (two biggest military powers)? or between the United States and China (two biggest economic powers)? or even between the United States and the EU (two biggest economic powers)?

I guess I am wondering how the prophecy can be "interpreted" in a modern sense by making Rome = United States and Persia = Iran when those two countries are not the two biggest known powers in the world? It seems to be of questionable logic to modernize one part of that prophecy (Rome = United States) without modernizing the other part of the prophecy (Persia = Russia/China/EU).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Not the return, no. That would apply to Christianity. I'm a Jew. Have you shown that you don't know the difference between the two?

You are correct. I made a mistake in my assertion. I have now corrected it to reflect the fact you are awaiting the first appearance of your Messiah. Sorry.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Rome, not in the sense of the defunct Roman Empire, but Rome as symbol of the West and Christendom, the last great bastion of which is the United States.

So, if Rome equals symbol of the West and Christendom, what does Persia equal, symbol of the East and Mohammedanism?


So, is this final battle you are talking about is between the forces of the Christian West and the Muslim East? If so, why didn't you just say so? Why be so evasive?
Why not just say you think any battle between the United States and Iran over Israel will be the indicator of the beginning of the end-times and the appearance of the Jewish Messiah?

If this final battle you are talking about is NOT between the forces of the Christian West and the Muslim East then what does Persia represent symbolically today?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Just to take you seriously for a minute. I am assuming these Talmudic prophecies were made involving Rome and Persia because, at the time, they were the two biggest known military/political powers in the Levant.

You would have been on to something but for the historical record not being on your side. The Persian Empire was vanquished by Rome at least two hundred years before that part of the Talmud was written, so those words would have been meaningless if meant as a prediction of near-time events.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

So, if Rome equals symbol of the West and Christendom, what does Persia equal, symbol of the East and Mohammedanism?

Essentially so, if you're open to the possibility. To me it's a pretty impressive portent.

So, is this final battle you are talking about is between the forces of the Christian West and the Muslim East? If so, why didn't you just say so? Why be so evasive? Why not just say you think any battle between the United States and Iran over Israel will be the indicator of the beginning of the end-times and the appearance of the Jewish Messiah?

I wanted to point those passages out to those who were interested without necessarily sparking a debate with those who were not. You didn't have to respond to my post, but apparently it was interesting enough for you to at least poke fun at (and to do so seemingly without giving much thought to), so here we are discussing it.

[Hawkeye_a]

Thought i'd chime in with my opinion on the latter half of this discussion.

No one is perfect. No one 'empire', 'religion', 'organization', 'country', 'civilization', 'way of life', etc.... is perfect.

The U.S., Rome, Israel, Iran, etc... are not perfect.

So, at the end of the day which side would i rather live in, start a business in or raise my children in, etc... and if i had to choose between 'Rome'/'Israel', 'Iran' or the 'Muslim world' given all their imperfections, the choice is extremely easy(hint: 'Rome/Israel').

But that's just my opinion, right ?

How does one decide which side is 'better'(economically/socially/culturally/etc) ? Well lets ask those people who migrate across the world looking for a 'better life' in different countries. What's the net flow of immigrants into Christendom/Israel and what's the net flow of immigrants into the Muslim world ?

And if i had to choose between a 'civilization' based on change, growth, equality, freedom and tolerance irrespective of race color or creed over one that is based on oppression, racism and inequality.... i think the prior is worth protecting.

[dcmacdaddy]

OK. So your whole post about Rome and Persia fighting over Israel really was about "end-time prophecies from a Jewish theological perspective."

But you don't have the courage to come out and say so but rather choose to be evasive about it? If you are hoping that the United States and Iran go to war over Israel because you interpret that as a sign of the appearance of the Jewish Messiah then just come out and say so. You don't strike me as a very serious believer if you choose to be so circumspect and evasive in how you phrase your religious aspirations.

If your faith is so important to you, why hide your desire for what (I would imagine) is one of the greatest occurrences to happen in your faith? Maybe as a non-believer I am not supposed to get it. But, if I was a believer, I would think that I would be proud to assert my faith and the tenets of my faith and be especially proud for what is essentially one of the singular highlights of my faith. I really don't get the evasiveness when talking about the possible appearance of your Messiah. Isn't that something you want to SHOUT ABOUT in this thread? Isn't that something you want to say you hope happens? Isn't it the case where you want to say "I hope this happens [conflict between US and Iran over Israel]" because it will fulfill one of my deepest spiritual desires? If I was a believer that is how I think I would act.

But who knows, maybe I am wrong. I just have a hard time picturing someone talking about in such vague, generalized, circumspect manner the possible occurrence of one of the most significant events in their faith. I just don't get it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Thought i'd chime in with my opinion on the latter half of this discussion.

No one is perfect. No one 'empire', 'religion', 'organization', 'country', 'civilization', 'way of life', etc.... is perfect.

The U.S., Rome, Israel, Iran, etc... are not perfect.

So, at the end of the day which side would i rather live in, start a business in or raise my children in, etc... and if i had to choose between 'Rome'/'Israel', 'Iran' or the 'Muslim world' given all their imperfections, the choice is extremely easy(hint: 'Rome/Israel').

But that's just my opinion, right ?

How does one decide which side is 'better'(economically/socially/culturally/etc) ? Well lets ask those people who migrate across the world looking for a 'better life' in different countries. What's the net flow of immigrants into Christendom/Israel and what's the net flow of immigrants into the Muslim world ?

And if i had to choose between a 'civilization' based on change, growth, equality, freedom and tolerance irrespective of race color or creed over one that is based on oppression, racism and inequality.... i think the prior is worth protecting.

Does "protecting" the civilization you favor mean the United States goes to war against Iran after Iran attacks Israel? Because that to me is not worth protecting. I do not want American soldiers dying to protect and defend Israelis. I want American soldiers dying to protect and defend American citizens. I want Israeli soldiers to fight to defend and protect their way of life, not Americans.


The only time in my life I have supported US military going to war is the invasion of Afghanistan to ferret out and destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda there that were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the United States. I have not, and will not, support US military effort to fight on another nation's behalf.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

OK. So your whole post about Rome and Persia fighting over Israel really was about "end-time prophecies from a Jewish theological perspective."

Yeah. Is it really necessary to connect all the dots?

But you don't have the courage to come out and say so but rather choose to be evasive about it? If you are hoping that the United States and Iran go to war over Israel because you interpret that as a sign of the appearance of the Jewish Messiah then just come out and say so. You don't strike me as a very serious believer if you choose to be so circumspect and evasive in how you phrase your religious aspirations.

This is getting more than a bit annoying. This wasn't a thread about my eschatological beliefs. This was a thread about "A Nuclear Iran." It would have been off-topic for me to delve directly into Jewish theology. I provided a reference to those who would be interested in looking it up to something that is meaningful to me - to an issue that was somewhat apropos to this discussion but in a tangential way. I did not intend to spur a theological discourse in this thread, but if the topic I had to mention was fully on point in this thread, I would have discussed it as such.

If your faith is so important to you, why hide your desire for what (I would imagine) is one of the greatest occurrences to happen in your faith? Maybe as a non-believer I am not supposed to get it. But, if I was a believer, I would think that I would be proud to assert my faith and the tenets of my faith and be especially proud for what is essentially one of the singular highlights of my faith.

I don't feel the need to constantly assert my faith or its tenets, honestly. I feel no need to trumpet it (generally speaking). I do so in select instances around here, and perhaps I do it too often at that. Many contributors to the Forums aren't exactly kind toward religious expression. I would count you in that camp. Those who have to constantly trumpet their religious beliefs feel the strong need to prove something to others, which may portray an insecurity on the subject. I am secure in my faith, and make no mistake - I am also very proud of it. I choose to be more reserved around here most of the time because I find PWL argumentation to be largely counterproductive.

I really don't get the evasiveness when talking about the possible appearance of your Messiah. Isn't that something you want to SHOUT ABOUT in this thread? Isn't that something you want to say you hope happens? Isn't it the case where you want to say "I hope this happens [conflict between US and Iran over Israel]" because it will fulfill one of my deepest spiritual desires? If I was a believer that is how I think I would act.

This wouldn't be the right thread to shout about those beliefs, if one were so inclined to shout about them at all. If the Messianic Era comes about after a showdown involving the United States, Iran and Israel, then we can look back and see that it was prophesied in the Talmud. If that occurs, then someone can potentially come back to this thread and note that I pointed this out. We will all have much better things to do with our time than look back at archives of these Forums if that occurs, though.

But who knows, maybe I am wrong. I just have a hard time picturing someone talking about in such vague, generalized, circumspect manner the possible occurrence of one of the most significant events in their faith. I just don't get it.

Did it ever occur to you that I mentioned the topic in (what you call) a vague, generalized and circumspect manner specifically because I didn't wish to get into this kind of petty debate with someone like you? Because I didn't want to completely derail the thread with this kind of sidebar? Instead of posting in the way I did, I suppose I could have PMed each person I wanted to mention my peripheral point to. I didn't feel like going to that kind of trouble. I simply offered a reference to a Jewish teaching that may be of interest those thinking about a possible war involving the United States, Iran and Israel. I am not a prophet or a sage, nor do I pretend to be one. If I could tell the future with certainty, I would indeed be much more adamant. I have my religious views and beliefs, and other people have theirs. I do find it interesting that my simple, one-line reference was so fascinating to you, as to elicit such a response.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah. Is it really necessary to connect all the dots?

Yes. If you don't want to be explicit about your statement, why bother mentioning it at all?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Did it ever occur to you that I mentioned the topic in (what you call) a vague, generalized and circumspect manner specifically because I didn't wish to get into this kind of petty debate with someone like you? Because I didn't want to completely derail the thread with this kind of sidebar?

Why even mention it at all then? You have already pointed out that it has only the slightest tangential relevance to the topic under discussion.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Instead of posting in the way I did, I suppose I could have PMed each person I wanted to mention my peripheral point to. I didn't feel like going to that kind of trouble.

Too bad. That would have been an excellent solution to inform those folks who care about such things and keep the thread on topic.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I simply offered a reference to a Jewish teaching that may be of interest those thinking about a possible war involving the United States, Iran and Israel.

Again, why even mention it at all? You have already pointed out that it has only the slightest tangential relevance to the topic under discussion.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I do find it interesting that my simple, one-line reference was so fascinating to you, as to elicit such a response.

As a non-believer I am fascinated by those persons who have profound religious beliefs and allow those beliefs to inform every part of their being. It is a practice utterly foreign to me. And with what you posted initially, and with your responses to my subsequent queries, you have indicated that you take seriously the belief in this idea (that the United States will battle Iran to defend Israel and doing so will bring about the appearance of the Jewish Messiah) and I had some questions about the contours of this belief and how you chose to make it manifest. I have certainly not intended any offense to you personally or any disparagement of your faith. I'm just trying to understand better how the faithful are faithful. That's all.



Anyway, I will continue to assert that I think it is not up to the United States to defend Israel from Iran. I think it is up to Israel to defend herself from Iran and it is up to the United States to defend itself from Iran.