Iran locked and loaded

bk

InFront wrote:

You are in danger of oversimplifying the case with that, in fact you would need more than one back up plant, and also you would require them to all to be running at all times, that's quite expensive, and what reaction do you think that all of those communities would have to nuclear reactors in their backyard?

Oh I agree, NIMBYism would block it from Ireland (we can't even get an incinerator built, never mind a nuclear plant). But I'm just making the point that there is no technical problem with Nuclear plants in Ireland. I can go into very deep technical detail on the issue if you like, but as this is all OT for this thread, I'll just say that the technical problems with Nuclear in Ireland are simply a myth spread by anti-nuclear people.

InFront wrote:

I'm not anti-nuclear in any way whatsoever. Neither have I said nuclear power is unsuitable, I said I thought it was technically unattractive with the lie of the land and the electricity distribution compared to wind generation. We are the least densely populated country in Europe.

Ireland isn't particularly suitable for wind, by far the best locations for wind farms are the West coast of Ireland, yet most of the population is on the east coast. Therefore you get all the problems of distribution and lose of power over distance that you seem to think that Nuclear would have.

Building one or two Nuclear plants in Leinster where over a third of the population lives would greatly improve power distribution on the national grid and radically reduce the amount of CO2 we produce while also giving us safety of power supply.

InFront wrote:

Just one question, why do you say it could only be 10 - 20%? We have some of the best wind resources in the world, and many other countries have reached much higher percentages than we have.
The thing about wind is not really that at all, the problem is that wind can indeed be expensive

No, the most wind power any country produces is Denmark which has a theoretical capability of producing 20% of it's power via wind. This country is the poster child for wind power. But in reality the truth is far less convincing, since Denmark went wind, not a single fossil fuel power plant has been closed. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. So most of the wind power Denmark produces is actually surplus and ends up getting exported at a big discount. In 2003 84% of Denmarks wind power got exported.

See here for more details: http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html

I use to also think wind power was brilliant and Nuclear was evil. It was only about a year ago that I started investigating all the alternatives to burning fossil fuels, that I learned Nuclear wasn't so bad and that most of the renewables such as wind were just too unreliable and intermittent to reduce our CO2 production enough.

Don't get me wrong, I think we should build as much wind, wave, solar, etc. power that we can. Just don't be fooled like I use to be, non of these are a silver built and if we really want to reduce CO2 emissions then we need to take a serious look at Nuclear.

InFront wrote:

No need to be so apologetic per se, but why do you not believe this doesn't benefit their economy?

Oh, it would benefit their economy if they were being honest. But look at it this way, it is going to cost them a fortune in capital expense to build a Nuclear reactor from scratch. Now both Russia and France have offered to help them build a safe, power producing Nuclear reactor with their heavy assistance and involvement. Such involvement (specially from France who are absolute Nuclear exports, producing 80% of all their power safely via Nuclear) would radically reduce the cost of building a Nuclear reactor. Yet Iran has turned them down. There is only one logical reason to turn down such an offer, that is that they want to use their reactors to produce weapons grade material.

RedPlanet

Judt wrote:

Err, they started it.

huh?
What has Iran ever done to the United States of America?
Nothing, that's what.
Bar the hostage situation during the revolution to oust the American backed dictator.
But heck, you guys shot down an Iranian civilian aeroplane after that killing loads of them so, that should have evened the score in your eyes huh?

The fact is, Iran hasn't done squat to anybody.

But perhaps you can tell me Judt, what exactly (do you think) Iran has done to USA to merit such ill will.

wes

RedPlanet wrote:

huh?
What has Iran ever done to the United States of America?
Nothing, that's what.
Bar the hostage situation during the revolution to oust the American backed dictator.
But heck, you guys shot down an Iranian civilian aeroplane after that killing loads of them so, that should have evened the score in your eyes huh?

The fact is, Iran hasn't done squat to anybody.

But perhaps you can tell me Judt, what exactly (do you think) Iran has done to USA to merit such ill will.

Lets not forget the Iran-Contra business either. Oh and the assassination by the CIA of a democratically elected leader who they didn't like. Seems to me that US has gone out of its way to piss of Iran several different times.

biko

Judt wrote:

Err, they started it. We're talking about Nuclear Weapons here, and ICBM's. Do you know what an ICBM is? It's a missile fired into orbit, which then comes down just about anywhere in the world with tremendous speed, wiping cities off the map anywhere in the world. We're not talking about some fictional WMD's here, Iraq never fired a goddamn intercontinental missile into space while flouting its nuclear program. Sure the US is calling wolf, but this time the wolf is shooting over our heads!

You know, if a aggressive nuclear carrying nation like America (keeps making war with just about anybody) start messing with my neighbours Iraq I'd be pretty quick to gun up too.
Don't forget that US already have nuked another country twice that could not defend itself! How's that for aggressive history? Twice! And the Big White Leader has said they may use a tactical nuclear pre-emptive strike.
Of course Iran want to have the means to defend itself.

Judt

RedPlanet wrote:

huh?
What has Iran ever done to the United States of America?
Nothing, that's what.
Bar the hostage situation during the revolution to oust the American backed dictator.
But heck, you guys shot down an Iranian civilian aeroplane after that killing loads of them so, that should have evened the score in your eyes huh?

The fact is, Iran hasn't done squat to anybody.

But perhaps you can tell me Judt, what exactly (do you think) Iran has done to USA to merit such ill will.

I meant in terms of the nuclear argument, but if you want to talk turkey on who dun what then the Iranians have their fair share of terrorist organisations on the payroll. The USA is no angel, but at least it doesn't hold the ultimate aim of converting us all to Islam or sending us to hell. Better the devil you know, and whatnot.

start messing with my neighbours Iraq I'd be pretty quick to gun up too.

You mean the Iraq they fought for ten years? Great love there... The Iranians are opportunistic.

Don't forget that US already have nuked another country twice that could not defend itself!

60 years ago! Sixty! The people born on that day are retiree's today! The people running the US today were mostly born after that day, or were kids at the time! It was at the end of the largest war the world had ever seen, that argument is completely out of context.

Of course Iran want to have the means to defend itself.

Well stuff them, they can't have it plain and simple, because the consequences are a bunch of Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers with nukes. The US is no angel, but at least the ultimate aim of its people is the live a full, long and happy life; rather than die in a blaze of glory converting the world to some religion stuck in medieval times. Sure Islam was the birthplace of modern mathematics, but they haven't moved much further in theocracies such as Iran.

wes

Judt wrote:

I meant in terms of the nuclear argument, but if you want to talk turkey on who dun what then the Iranians have their fair share of terrorist organisations on the payroll. The USA is no angel, but at least it doesn't hold the ultimate aim of converting us all to Islam or sending us to hell. Better the devil you know, and whatnot.

Iran supporting terrorists happened after the US murdered there President and then imposed a dictator on the Iranians people. The Islamic revolution happened after all that. Maybe if they hadn't messed about with Iran so much in the first place they wouldn't be supporting terrorists.

Judt

wes wrote:

Iran supporting terrorists happened after the US murdered there President and then imposed a dictator on the Iranians people. The Islamic revolution happened after all that. Maybe if they hadn't messed about with Iran so much in the first place they wouldn't be supporting terrorists.

Are you going to continue this line of "IT'S NOT FAIR!!!" reasoning as we sit in the fallout shelters awaiting our hair to fall out? Willing to take that chance so that the Iranians can feel vindicated?

wes

Judt wrote:

Are you going to continue this line of "IT'S NOT FAIR!!!" reasoning as we sit in the fallout shelters awaiting our hair to fall out? Willing to take that chance so that the Iranians can feel vindicated?

All I was pointing out is that the US doesn't seem to like any form of government Iran chooses.

Why would Iran even use there weapons. MAD prevents almost everyone from doing this. You can try and paint them as religious nuts, but there no worse than Evangelicals Christians of whom George Bush is a member.

Also no one has presented proof they are building bombs as of yet. Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for a while now and neither the Military dictators or democratically elected governments have used them and there also a Muslim nation. Why would Iran be any different?

Also why would Iran attack Europe? They would attack the US if they wanted to attack anyone at all and I don't believe they are dumb enough to do that.

So do you A. Have proof there building weapons, B. Plans to attack anyone? The US doesn't seem to have either and I doubt you do as well. Its not like the US hasn't got it wrong before when it comes to WMD's.

RedPlanet

The USA is no angel, but at least it doesn't hold the ultimate aim of converting us all to Islam or sending us to hell. Better the devil you know, and whatnot.

So Iran the country, has some sort of ultimate aim of converting the rest of the world's populations to Islam?
Well that certainly is interesting.
Can you tell me how much effort and money Iran spends on proselytizing?
Cause the only people that have ever approached me in my whole life, trying to persuade me to join their religion have all been Christians.
Infact, of the muslims that i know, not one of them has appeared to try and convert me.
I'm not worried about it even if they attempt it though.
I'm not sure why you are so worked up over it, i mean lookit, Christianity has killed far, far more people in it's name than Islam has.
Check this out:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20030630,00.html
From the cover of a mainstream "news" magazine of the West.
I challenge you to find anything remotely similiar from the MiddleEast.
Whom is trying to convert whom Judt?
Looks like the shoe is on the other foot huh.

wes

RedPlanet wrote:

So Iran the country, has some sort of ultimate aim of converting the rest of the world's populations to Islam?
Well that certainly is interesting.
Can you tell me how much effort and money Iran spends on proselytizing?
Cause the only people that have ever approached me in my whole life, trying to persuade me to join their religion have all been Christians.
Infact, of the muslims that i know, not one of them has appeared to try and convert me.
I'm not worried about it even if they attempt it though.
I'm not sure why you are so worked up over it, i mean lookit, Christianity has killed far, far more people in it's name than Islam has.
Check this out:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20030630,00.html
From the cover of a mainstream "news" magazine of the West.
I challenge you to find anything remotely similiar from the MiddleEast.
Whom is trying to convert whom Judt?
Looks like the shoe is on the other foot huh.

Wasn't aware of that Time issue. Wow, its not like the Iraq invasion in 2003 pissed people off in the Middle East enough already, but to go over and try and convert them? I think trying to get them on board with the separation of Church and State would be more helpful.

Judt

RedPlanet wrote:

So Iran the country, has some sort of ultimate aim of converting the rest of the world's populations to Islam?
Well that certainly is interesting.
Can you tell me how much effort and money Iran spends on proselytizing?
Cause the only people that have ever approached me in my whole life, trying to persuade me to join their religion have all been Christians.
Infact, of the muslims that i know, not one of them has appeared to try and convert me.
I'm not worried about it even if they attempt it though.
I'm not sure why you are so worked up over it, i mean lookit, Christianity has killed far, far more people in it's name than Islam has.

The ultimate aim of the Islamic theocracy is to convert the world to Islam.... why do you think all these suicide bombers and terrorists talk about non-believers? They're not just out to kill Atheists.

Sure 9/10 Muslims you meet in the West are perfectly content people. But Iran is a theocracy. Remember that. A state based around a religion whose head is a religious figure. Remember also that we have, quite famously these days, become accustomed to the Islamic idea of martyrdom. These guys are unhinged and, as we've seen, will stop at nothing to kill us. Now imagine them with the most destructive weapon mankind has ever conceived.

Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for a while now and neither the Military dictators or democratically elected governments have used them and there also a Muslim nation. Why would Iran be any different?

Pakistan has them because India has them, and they keep an eye on one another. Pakistan, also, is a secular country, not a theocracy.

Also why would Iran attack Europe? They would attack the US if they wanted to attack anyone at all and I don't believe they are dumb enough to do that.

It doesn't matter who the hell they attack. One nuke goes up in the air and the whole shooting game takes off. Russia sees the US launch a counter-strike, they fire their nukes; India and Pakistan have a go, China gets involved. Once you fire one nuke you've put yourself down the domino road to firing them all.

A. Have proof there building weapons

Gee whiz, let me see now, their nuclear reactors which are tailor made for enrichment; their newfound missiles, tailor made for delivering nuclear weapons; their constantly belligerent stance. I think that ICBM's move too fast to read the manufacturers warranty on the side, so I'll add up two and two.

Plans to attack anyone?

Ya know, if that's your second argument - "So what if they do get nukes, they'd never use them" - then we're really screwed. Iran isn't putting on the condom for the heck of it.

Its not like the US hasn't got it wrong before when it comes to WMD's.

Everyone seems to smirk when they say that. As I've said about the boy who cried wolf, at the end of the day it was the village who lost their sheep.

wes

Judt wrote:

Pakistan has them because India has them, and they keep an eye on one another. Pakistan, also, is a secular country, not a theocracy.

Pakistan does have several Islamic laws, not on the same level as Iran, but they call themselves a Muslim country.

Judt wrote:

It doesn't matter who the hell they attack. One nuke goes up in the air and the whole shooting game takes off. Russia sees the US launch a counter-strike, they fire their nukes; India and Pakistan have a go, China gets involved. Once you fire one nuke you've put yourself down the domino road to firing them all.

Why would Indian and Pakistan launch attacks? They aren't involved at all.
Also why would Russia attack? There pals with Iran for oil, they could care less about Iran if it was nuked. So in the incredibly unlikely event of a Nuclear war between the US and Iran I doubt other nations would start firing off bombs unless there hit.

Judt wrote:

Gee whiz, let me see now, their nuclear reactors which are tailor made for enrichment; their newfound missiles, tailor made for delivering nuclear weapons; their constantly belligerent stance. I think that ICBM's move too fast to read the manufacturers warranty on the side, so I'll add up two and two.

According to who? The US? What I have seen on the news suggests there isn't much evidence they are making weapons. Even if they were it would take years to do so. Also the climate in Iran has turned against there President. Even his supporters dislike his rhetoric and would rather not be bombed.

Judt wrote:

Ya know, if that's your second argument - "So what if they do get nukes, they'd never use them" - then we're really screwed. Iran isn't putting on the condom for the heck of it.

Everyone seems to smirk when they say that. As I've said about the boy who cried wolf, at the end of the day it was the village who lost their sheep.

Plenty of nations have Nuclear weapons. Only 1 has used it and that nation used it to end the largest conflict in Human history. Iran would be wiped out if they attacked anyone with Nuclear weapons. MAD has kept every nation in check when it comes to Nuclear weapons. The Iranians may be religious nuts, but the majority of suicide bombers are actually from the other sects not the Shia one that Iran proscribes too. The 9/11 attackers were Sunni not Shia. So applying the suicide bomber mentality doesn't make much sense, its like saying Protestants ministers abuse children when its the Catholic clergy that had the problem.

RedPlanet

Judt wrote:

The ultimate aim of the Islamic theocracy is to convert the world to Islam.... why do you think all these suicide bombers and terrorists talk about non-believers? They're not just out to kill Atheists.

I think you're wrong there.
Infact, i think you're talking media spin of a particular quote by the Ruhollah Khomeini, the first Supreme Leader of Iran when he was vying for power during the Revolution in 1979.
Since Islam appears to respect Christianity and Judaism "people of the book", (unlike any of the other major religions); i am doubting Ali Khamenei has made a declaration of converting the worlds populations to Islam.
I could be wrong of course.
But i am not wrong when i say: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa declaring the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam.

If you believe what you say about Iran, then i wonder why you don't believe him when he says that. And why believe what the yanks say of Iran's ambitions when they've proven their word is no good.

Just had a quick read on the Iranian Constitution and i see nothing about converting the world's populations to Islam.
So Judt, it's your allegation, you prove it!

mick.fr

wes wrote:

Plenty of nations have Nuclear weapons. Only 1 has used it and that nation used it to end the largest conflict in Human history

No the nuclear attack over Japan was a test.

KerranJast

wes wrote:

Why would Iran even use there weapons. MAD prevents almost everyone from doing this.

MAD doesn't cover terrorist groups. The nightmare of most Western nations (and also Russia due to the Chechen situation) is terrorists being sold a nuke by a sympathetic nuclear nation which could be smuggled into a major city and detonated. In such a scenario it would be very hard to tie the attack to any one nation and so the victim state could not respond in kind for fear of provoking all out nuclear war.

Padraig Mor

Judt wrote:

The ultimate aim of the Islamic theocracy is to convert the world to Islam.... Iran is a theocracy. .... become accustomed to the Islamic idea of martyrdom. These guys are unhinged and, as we've seen, will stop at nothing to kill us. Now imagine them with the most destructive .

So basically your argument is that if they're Islamic then they're mad? Nice xenophobic sentiment there. (I could mention that - based on your comments in another thread - you seem to be all for another Middle Eastern militantly religious state possessing nuclear weapons but that would be going off-topic). There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. None. There is not even a hint of evidence. All evidence suggests that the Iranians are doing exactly what they've said - developing cilian power projects. The IAEA are in there with unfettered access. Just this weekend a UN report suggested that American claims were a pack of lies. Yet you know better of course. They're Muslim = they're mad = they want to kill us all. Get real.

wes

KerranJast wrote:

MAD doesn't cover terrorist groups. The nightmare of most Western nations (and also Russia due to the Chechen situation) is terrorists being sold a nuke by a sympathetic nuclear nation which could be smuggled into a major city and detonated. In such a scenario it would be very hard to tie the attack to any one nation and so the victim state could not respond in kind for fear of provoking all out nuclear war.

I still don't see any nations government giving any terrorists weapons. Maybe elements within, and thats a big maybe. I think if America wants to stop Nuclear weapons getting into terrorist hands, they should look to old Soviet Republics and decommission weapons and material there. There still the most likely source. Wasn't there a sting involving someone who use to be high up in the Russian military who was found to be selling weapons and was willing to sell them to terrorists.

So Iran doesn't have weapons. Theres no proof that are making them. I don't rule out the possibility that they may go down that road at a later date, but right now it doesn't seem to be the case. The fear of terrorist getting Nukes is real, but they could very easily come from Russia as seen by the recent sting operation. There are lot of maybes with Iran supplying Nuclear weapons to terrorists, when we have at least one example of a former member of the Russian Military who has tried to sell weapons. So I would be far more worried about Nuclear weapons going missing in Russia or material from one of the old republics.

Frederico

Judt wrote:

Err, they started it. We're talking about Nuclear Weapons here, and ICBM's. Do you know what an ICBM is? It's a missile fired into orbit, which then comes down just about anywhere in the world with tremendous speed, wiping cities off the map anywhere in the world. We're not talking about some fictional WMD's here, Iraq never fired a goddamn intercontinental missile into space while flouting its nuclear program. Sure the US is calling wolf, but this time the wolf is shooting over our heads!

Oh stop, this is completely irrational. People who think like this tend to be very influenced by the current trend of media fear mongering, hype and Islamophobia. The Iranian president is just trying to draw attention away from domestic issues, much like Bush really.

Inflation and unemployment has continued to rise in Iran, there is a constant 'brain-drain', many educated young people leaving the country in droves, not to mention the huge gap between rich and poor. The current president shouldn't last too long, he took a hammering in the last elections. I mean the supreme leader didn't even talk to the guy for months.

Its funny how certain Americans are so scared of this ccrraazzzyy Iranian president, yet don't seem to be the slightest bit phased by their president who says god told him to do it, by some of their senators who believe the sun goes around the earth and by the fact that two wars later they still haven't caught the damn guy who did it.

Frederico

KerranJast wrote:

MAD doesn't cover terrorist groups. The nightmare of most Western nations (and also Russia due to the Chechen situation) is terrorists being sold a nuke by a sympathetic nuclear nation which could be smuggled into a major city and detonated. In such a scenario it would be very hard to tie the attack to any one nation and so the victim state could not respond in kind for fear of provoking all out nuclear war.

This is a Western fear. We go to war and kill thousands and thousands of people based on our fears, we arrest innocent people and torture them for years based on our fears. We all watch a little too much 24 I think.

Judt

Pakistan does have several Islamic laws, not on the same level as Iran, but they call themselves a Muslim country.

We, and many other European nations, have Christian laws (which we don't even notice) and would nominally term ourselves Christian nations. We're not theocracies run from the top by clerics.

Why would Indian and Pakistan launch attacks? They aren't involved at all.
Also why would Russia attack? There pals with Iran for oil, they could care less about Iran if it was nuked. So in the incredibly unlikely event of a Nuclear war between the US and Iran I doubt other nations would start firing off bombs unless there hit.

The principals of MAD are that once you do start launching, you have to launch quickly. If the US sees a missile incoming it can't magically tell who fired it; and even more so the same for less technologically advanced countries. Pakistan or India see nukes flying overhead and they assume they're From: Pakistan To: India With Love and launch before, they assume, their stockpile can be wiped out on the ground and they lose.

If you don't understand how nuclear wars work then I think it rather blase to tell us what Iran would and wouldn't do with nukes. One of those suckers gets fired into the air and the entire world goes on alert. If a missile is launched unexpectedly nuclear commands around the world go onto high alert. If the damn thing comes back down again in any hurry and in their direction, they launch. That's how twitchy nuclear war is.

According to who? The US? What I have seen on the news suggests there isn't much evidence they are making weapons. Even if they were it would take years to do so. Also the climate in Iran has turned against there President. Even his supporters dislike his rhetoric and would rather not be bombed.

I think you'll find there are two sides: Sure there are moderates not wanting that, but most of the theocracy levels of chaps who run the country are pushing for the nuclear negotiators to take a harder stance. If Iran has now weapons intentions then they should open up for full inspection; no rethoric, no firing of well-timed missiles, no bull. We're not playing some silly game here.

Plenty of nations have Nuclear weapons. Only 1 has used it and that nation used it to end the largest conflict in Human history

60 years ago, I really wish people would give over on this. The two nukes dropped then were pretty much the only two nukes in operational existence.

RedPlanet, the aim of Islam et al is conversion. It's the aim of Christians, too, except we're somewhat past suicide missions in the west, at least. look up the dhimmis, look at the rethoric they spew about non-believers and suchlike. During the time of the crusades the thinking was "Convert, or kill them" from both sides. That seems to have remained alive among our less westernised friends who, for example, can consider themselves Muslims first, British second when they go to blow up their own countrymen. Iran, remember, sponsors terrorism in the Middle East, and who knows where else besides.

So basically your argument is that if they're Islamic then they're mad? Nice xenophobic sentiment there.

Err, no. That's a bit like saying that because I don't agree with fundamentalist Christians who have their heads stuck in the crusades, I'm against Christianity. I'm not anti-Islamic, I'm saying that Islamic fundamentalists - and just about any religious whack job, for that matter, Christian, Jew or other - are nutjobs. In this case, they're running a country.

I still don't see any nations government giving any terrorists weapons

Err, Iran arms Hezbollah, for a start...

Covering our eyes and going "LALALALA" while they prepare ICBMs, spew rethoric, prepare a nuclear program and arm terrorists in one of the worlds remaining theocracies is folly. Anti-Americanism is not a great way to plan for your defence.

Hotblack Desiato

Judt wrote:

The principals of MAD are that once you do start launching, you have to launch quickly.

Not if enough of your forces can survive a first strike to deliver serious ass-whooping to the perpetrators of said strike. The 'tripwire' policy went out 40 years ago when ballistic missile submarine fleets came in and provided a retaliatory force almost impossible to destroy. That definitely made the world a safer place than when you had to commit your own bombers to attack on the first sign of a threat, then hope to recall them in time when the threat turned out to be false (like in Dr. Strangelove) Of course you also need to have some sort of survivable command and control mechanism, but the US certainly does have this.

wes

Judt wrote:

Err, Iran arms Hezbollah, for a start...

Covering our eyes and going "LALALALA" while they prepare ICBMs, spew rethoric, prepare a nuclear program and arm terrorists in one of the worlds remaining theocracies is folly. Anti-Americanism is not a great way to plan for your defence.

I meant Nuclear weapons. Plenty of nations have armed terrorists. Even Europe and America have relatively recently as well as Iran.

Judt wrote:

The principals of MAD are that once you do start launching, you have to launch quickly. If the US sees a missile incoming it can't magically tell who fired it; and even more so the same for less technologically advanced countries. Pakistan or India see nukes flying overhead and they assume they're From: Pakistan To: India With Love and launch before, they assume, their stockpile can be wiped out on the ground and they lose.

The US would have a attack planned in advance (actually I think they have attacks planned against every nuclear power, even allies), I am sure they US military is smart enough to avoid sending missiles over India or Pakistan and any other nuclear powered nations that there not trying to hit. The US military are smart enough bunch to avoid sending missile over such a volatile region.

RedPlanet

Judt, for your information Islam is not trying to convert all the worlds populations.
Infact certain sects of Islam do not engage in proselytizing at all.

It also sounds like you view Hezbollah as though they are the same as al-Qaeda or something.
Why so? when they probably have more in common with the IRA.

Judt

ninja900 wrote:

Not if enough of your forces can survive a first strike to deliver serious ass-whooping to the perpetrators of said strike. The 'tripwire' policy went out 40 years ago when ballistic missile submarine fleets came in and provided a retaliatory force almost impossible to destroy. That definitely made the world a safer place than when you had to commit your own bombers to attack on the first sign of a threat, then hope to recall them in time when the threat turned out to be false (like in Dr. Strangelove) Of course you also need to have some sort of survivable command and control mechanism, but the US certainly does have this.

The US, Britain and France are the only nations (in descending order) to maintain sub fleets with this capability. China only recently acquired it, and they're still perfecting it (IE, learning how not to run their subs into things.)

For someone like India or Pakistan, all they see are the blips on a radar. And nukes don't fly in the atmosphere, they go into space before coming back down - you don't track ICBM's, you assume if one is coming anywhere near your direction your flippen well under attack. India and Pakistan are two countries who have to get off their birds before they're wiped out, as they're (technologically) still in the pre-boomer age of nuclear conflict.

I meant Nuclear weapons. Plenty of nations have armed terrorists. Even Europe and America have relatively recently as well as Iran.

There's no question of the west handing Islamic terrorists nuclear arms to come and bomb London.

I am sure they US military is smart enough to avoid sending missiles over India or Pakistan and any other nuclear powered nations that there not trying to hit. The US military are smart enough bunch to avoid sending missile over such a volatile region.

First, read up on your nuclear weapons and how they are delivered. Then get out an Atlas. It'll become apparent to you why any shooting war with nukes tends to devolve quickly on a worldwide scale.

oscarBravo

Judt, you've obviously made a detailed historical study of all the nuclear wars the world has experienced to date. Care to list them?

Manic Moran

Boomers are less of an issue for India/Pakistan as they are relatively close together. Unlike ICBMs, which generally require large fixed sites to launch from Dakota to get to Minsk, IRBMs and SRBMs will do quite nicely, and they can be mounted on the back of trucks, thus retaining the 'dispersal' benefit that boomers have.

NTM

EmrldOne

Oh for gods sake the American fascists as in George Bush and co. are the biggest bullies in the world. They see a middle-eastern nation getting a bit of power and they attack it. Its hard to watch this bull****

Victor

KerranJast wrote:

MAD doesn't cover terrorist groups. The nightmare of most Western nations (and also Russia due to the Chechen situation) is terrorists being sold a nuke by a sympathetic nuclear nation which could be smuggled into a major city and detonated. In such a scenario it would be very hard to tie the attack to any one nation and so the victim state could not respond in kind for fear of provoking all out nuclear war.

Actually, tracing nuclear weapons is possible, because in practical terms, the uranium can't be refined beyond a certain point, due to trace elements and isotopes. As I understand it, give a nuclear scientist the composition of a uranium core and he will be able to tell you where and when it was mined.

Victor

Judt wrote:

The principals of MAD are that once you do start launching, you have to launch quickly. If the US sees a missile incoming it can't magically tell who fired it;

Yes, they can. Assumming its a ballistic missile, it was a rather determinable path. Missile submarines and cruise missiles are another matter, but Iran is rather low on that scale.

and even more so the same for less technologically advanced countries. Pakistan or India see nukes flying overhead and they assume they're From: Pakistan To: India With Love and launch before, they assume, their stockpile can be wiped out on the ground and they lose.

Again no. Yes they can (probably) see a missile coming and see where its going. If its 150km up and maintaining altitude, it isn't coming down anytime soon.

If you don't understand how nuclear wars work then I think it rather blase to tell us what Iran would and wouldn't do with nukes. One of those suckers gets fired into the air and the entire world goes on alert. If a missile is launched unexpectedly nuclear commands around the world go onto high alert. If the damn thing comes back down again in any hurry and in their direction, they launch. That's how twitchy nuclear war is.

However, let us say that country Y has 3 nuclear weapons. And it fires 3 nuclear weapons that detonate in country X. How many nuclear weapons does country X fire back? By your thesis, all of them. In reality, small nuclear was is not the sma eas big nuclear war.

Iran, remember, sponsors terrorism in the Middle East, and who knows where else besides.

Can you define this?

I'm saying that Islamic fundamentalists - and just about any religious whack job, for that matter, Christian, Jew or other - are nutjobs. In this case, they're running a country.

IF they are such nut jobs, how come they haven't spent the last 27 years at war? Notably every country they have land borders with have had some sort of clict in that time.

Judt wrote:

The US, Britain and France are the only nations (in descending order) to maintain sub fleets with this capability. China only recently acquired it, and they're still perfecting it (IE, learning how not to run their subs into things.)

You forget Russia, but I have to admit these days they prefer to tie them up dockside. China has had ballistic missile submarines since the 1960s, although less than successful.

First, read up on your nuclear weapons and how they are delivered. Then get out an Atlas. It'll become apparent to you why any shooting war with nukes tends to devolve quickly on a worldwide scale.

Physician, heal thyself.

Jimboo_Jones

Judt wrote:

The US, Britain and France are the only nations (in descending order) to maintain sub fleets with this capability. China only recently acquired it, and they're still perfecting it (IE, learning how not to run their subs into things.)

pretty sure I read somewhere that India brought a couple of nuke capable sub from the russians a few years back - dont know if they are in services yet though.

*looks like my assumption my be a bit hasty...