Iran locked and loaded

sovtek

Sand wrote:

And people question why I use the quote...

...I don't, not that it's relevant.

sovtek

fly_agaric wrote:

I think that he (like me) would trust Western democracies (even the US:eek: ) with nukes (or even just their own, wholly owned nuclear technology) somewhat more than:

a) USSR (esp. when Uncle Joe was running it)
b) China under Chairman Mao
c) Nazi Germany
and most impotantly
d) Iran under Allah-botherers.

I would too. Despite the shítty wages plebs like me get paid...;)

Notice non of those regimes ever used them. Nor have any of them reserved the right to use nukes against countries that don't have them. Iran, in fact has said that it's against god to have them.

Pakistan??:) Israel??:)

Actually Israel might have as well...not sure. It's the one with most nukes in the Middle East.

Hogmeister B

fly_agaric wrote:

I think that he (like me) would trust Western democracies (even the US:eek: ) with nukes (or even just their own, wholly owned nuclear technology) somewhat more than:

a) USSR (esp. when Uncle Joe was running it)
b) China under Chairman Mao
c) Nazi Germany
and most impotantly
d) Iran under Allah-botherers.

To be fair, I wouldn't trust Iran or Stalin's USSR any less than a 'democracy' like France or England to have nuclear weapons and not use them. The instinct for self-preservation is universal, and really has nothing to do with your political system. The mullahs have no more desire to see Tehran wiped off the face of the earth than the Israelis have to see Tel Aviv vapourised or than Stalin had to see Russia's cities obliterated. Anyhow, it's kinda hard to be a cruel oppressive dictator if one's victims are orbiting the earth in an atomised state.

fly_agaric

sovtek wrote:

Notice non of those regimes ever used them. Nor have any of them reserved the right to use nukes against countries that don't have them. Iran, in fact has said that it's against god to have them.

Okay Sovtek, I give up.
I suppose that for you, Stalin, Mao and perhaps the Mullahs all at least have the facts in their favour that they are/were against capitalism and are or were on the enemy list of Uncle Sam!
If they are making an enemy of the US they must be doing something right I suppose...

sovtek wrote:

Actually Israel might have as well...not sure. It's the one with most nukes in the Middle East.

AFAIR Israel neither confirms or denies that it has nuclear weapons so I'm sure it would have no policy on their use. Pakistan AFAIR does not rule out first-use of nuclear weapons (India is, of course, much bigger and I'm sure it has a larger and better conventional military).

Hogmeister B wrote:

yhow, it's kinda hard to be a cruel oppressive dictator if one's victims are orbiting the earth in an atomised state.

But what if you are the kind of cruel oppressive dictator who considers having 15 % of his population surviving to be oppressed another day vs the enemies, say, 5 % survivors is a victory?

InFront

Late reply, but better late than never (hmm, debatable)

Judt wrote:

Iran on the other hand funds terrorists in the middle east

Haven't you ever heard the tale “How The Soviets Lost Afghanistan”, the prequel to “How the Taliban Won It”?

and if there then they're perfectly capable of doing it anywhere, if their actions and rethoric are anything to go by... I dont trust the Iranians. They spew rethoric

Yes because spewing rhetoric is as bad as it gets internationally - forget the janjaweed, forget Israel, forget the Palestinians, forget the militant wing of the Pakistani Salafi Jihadis, forget Iraq (oh, if only), forget The Congo - spewing rhetoric is ‘unforgivable’ and must be corrected with pressing urgency? You realise that rhetoric, by definition, is empty? It's simply wording.

I'd really love to know where patrolling the coast of your enemy comes on that agenda. If it were Iran cruising up and down the New York Coastline in a warship, having just taken Mexico, what would Americans do? Wave back? I don't think there would be any Iranian warship left to wave at.

[On Pakistan]

Sure they're not our most scrupulous of allies, but we know they sure as hell aren't crazy enough to try and pull some stunt on us with their nuclear weapons.

But we have to get ourselves out of it somehow, and they're the only guys with a big enough shovel.

Who are 'we' and 'us'. Don't go building a bomb shelter under your garden just yet, if someone's going to fire a nuke it's hardly going to be Iran, and it certainly wouldn't be on 'us'.

I believe the weapons are what Iran's rulers are really most interested in. Why not admit that?

But why do you believe that? Surely the burden of proof lies with those who do not believe what the relevant authorities are telling them. Where is your proof?

Originally posted by fly_agaric
1. As I said, some of the countries there are very unstable. What happens to any nukes/technology/knowledge if the governments collapse/are overthrown or if there are civil wars? God only knows.

Yes, what would happen if a Nuclear, Muslim country known to be harbouring terrorists, and who was involved in an international conflict with another nuclear power, suddenly had an illegal coup, and a military dictator rose to power, and rose to the big red button? Wait, we already know. And they're an American ally. It's a joke. The last time I switched on the TV Musharraf had just fired the chief justice in a personal dispute, America doesn't care about middle eastern democracy.

Suggesting that Iran has an unstable Government is just untrue. I don't think anyone really suggests it, I doubt that even the Americans would suggest it.

Originally posted by fly_agaric
2. Even if countries are stable, the current leaderships are quite agressive (Iran). They may actually develop weapons, use the things themselves (if provoked by you know who...), or give them to others... a nuked city in Europe or the US would probably be worse for future partnership than economic damage to Iran..

How is the Ayatollah aggressive against the west? And why are you talking about nuclear weapons? And why mention terrorism? Why would Ayatollah Khameine’i bomb the home of one of the holiest sites in Islam and the Palestinians who protect it? That makes no sense.

Back in the run-up to the American invasion of Iraq, those who suggested that WMDs were nonsense were looked upon like mad left-wingers or Labour Youth types who would as quickly lie in front of a truck on the road to Rossport as get a job.
Even here in Ireland, despite people being vehemently opposed to the war, there was this ubiquitous, disconcerted apprehension about Saddam and his WMDs, and what he could do with them (and in under 45 minutes).

In general the concensus was that while the war wasn’t warranted, the WMDs were hidden in garden sheds somewhere.
Now, you can look back at this and roll your eyes at how the allegation was largely swallowed up (even the anti-war public), but yet we listen to tales of Iran's nuclear weaponry programme with stony-faced seriousness and an almost automatic under-the-breath fear of Iran. Why is that?
It's because fear is the shortest path to belief, and once people start getting afraid, they start believing these allegations, and then the right to attack has been won. I wonder how many people, who believe the US allegations now, thought that Saddam had WMDs too?

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/Conflict_Iraq/weapons_MassDest.cfm

when asked simply, "To the best of your knowledge, do you think Iraq currently possesses weapons of mass destruction, or doesn't it have those?" an overwhelming majority -- 80% -- said it does have them, while just 11% said it does not (CBS News, February 2002).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/September%20Dailies/Iran.htm

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Americans believe that Iran is likely to develop nuclear weapons in the near future. Most doubt that anything can be done to prevent such a development.

A lot of this reasoning seems to be based on Ahmadinejad. He is very nearly a political nobody. He is Gordon Brown and the Queen of England rolled into one little man - he writes the budget and oversees the constitution - and yet can't even do these without the Ayatollah's and the clerics' approval.
It must be strange for US and European correspondents in Tehran that the Ayatollah Khameine'i is referred to in Iranian conversation as "The Leader", while in the eyes of the West, the leader - quite conveniently - is the rather more blundering Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
How many Americans do you honestly think know who rules Iran? I'm guessing that many of them haven't even got their heads around where Iran is, nevermind who this guy called Tehran is, and why he wants to blow them all up. But they do recognize Ahmadinejad, and they know "he’s the guy who wants to wipe Israel off the map". Do they speak Farsi? No, but the media said so.
Go through this website and ask yourself how much of a bloodthirsty warmonger the leader of Iran really is.

Why would Iran invest in nuclear weaponry? It's already been said that the Ayatollah has written a fatwa against it. Iran is an Islamic state. He did not write the fatwa to please Americans, most Americans don't read or believe or care about any of that, and history has taught us that Iran in turn simply doesn't care about Americans, or what they believe.
So don't just look at what he is saying in that fatwa, but consider who he is saying it to - Iranians.

Iran are not the Taliban, they are not Al-Qa'eda - for goodness sake the Ayatollah is one of the greatest critics of (the very anti-Shi'ite by the way) militant Salafi-Jihaddism, and of Bin Laden, and of what he has called the "superstitious cult of Wahabbism". He actually helped to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. People have short memories. While Pakistan and the USA were flying Taliban leaders into Islamabad and Washington for talks, the Iranians wouldn't even recognize them - they imprisoned the son of Usama Bin Laden. The regime hasn't changed in Iran, nothing changes in Iran.
The whole idea of supporting al Qaeda terrorism has come out of nowhere. The USA, with Judt marching in line, have walked too far past the line of credibility. Fly agaric, you too suggest that European cities would be in danger, why? What evidence points to that? Iran has never started a war against the USA or Britain, why would they?

Originally posted by Tristrame
I take your point that of course they will want them-so might the jingaweed but that doesn't mean we should wish that they have them.

But where is that comparison even coming from? Iran don't even remotely resemble the janjaweed, they're nothing like them. It's like 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, do people actually believe this? Because to be honest it's either that or 'they practice capital punsihment, and therefore want a nuclear bomb' sort of logic, and I'm not sure which one makes less sense.

Originally posted by fly agaric
the only people who can get Iran out of the shít are the Iranians themselves. Sanctions or no sanctions.

Sanctions will destroy the economy; the only thing still propping it up are hydrocarbons. Sanctions can not destroy weapons programs that do not or cannot exist, but they can destroy the peace that does exists.
It seems to me that sanctions on Iraq are simply a process of setting out on the long road to Iraq II (Or surely Iraq IV by now?) Sanctions usually cause more trouble than they're worth, and with the mounting instability in the middle east, as well as the instability that's coming when the oil and gas starts to disappear, there's a lot of trouble ahead for a bankrupt, angry, Iran, and for the USA who drag their feet lazily behind events in the Middle East anyway.

When is the last time Iran attacked/invaded any other country?

Good question; another useful question is what happened the last time Iran had a secular deomcracy?

sovtek

fly_agaric wrote:

Okay Sovtek, I give up.
I suppose that for you, Stalin, Mao and perhaps the Mullahs all at least have the facts in their favour that they are/were against capitalism and are or were on the enemy list of Uncle Sam!
If they are making an enemy of the US they must be doing something right I suppose...

Oh right, I forgot...I'm a knee jerk anti american

AFAIR Israel neither confirms or denies that it has nuclear weapons so I'm sure it would have no policy on their use. Pakistan AFAIR does not rule out first-use of nuclear weapons (India is, of course, much bigger and I'm sure it has a larger and better conventional military).

While Israel doesn't confirm it it is well known that they do. Therefore someone somewhere has a policy. Like I said I don't know what that policy is.
I'm not sure which is more threatening

KerranJast

To get slightly back on topic it looks as if what I predicted happened. Iran finally went and pissed off the Russians. I'd say those UNSC sanctions are looking more and more likely.

Jimboo_Jones

I suspect that the reasons that China and Russia are dragging their heels over the sanctions are more due to their feelings(fear) towards America than their feelings towards Iran.

InFront

InFront wrote:

But where is that comparison even coming from? Iran don't even remotely resemble the janjaweed, they're nothing like them. It's like 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, do people actually believe this? Because to be honest it's either that or 'they practice capital punsihment, and therefore want a nuclear bomb' sort of logic, and I'm not sure which one makes less sense.

It's closer to the latter.It wasn't meant to be a comparison.
The jingaweed was an extreme example of who I wouldn't like to have the "bomb".
It's not that theres a descending order or anything but I'd not wish/like Iran to have it either.
Theres a lot of things about Iran that I wouldn't want forced into any society that doesn't already have it.
Sharia for instance,or even something as basic as moral censorship on TV radio and film.
I wouldn't trust Iran not to use a nuke by proxy ie hand it over to a nice group to do the dirty work.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

It's closer to the latter.It wasn't meant to be a comparison.
The jingaweed was an extreme example of who I wouldn't like to have the "bomb".
It's not that theres a descending order or anything but I'd not wish/like Iran to have it either.
Theres a lot of things about Iran that I wouldn't want forced into any society that doesn't already have it.
Sharia for instance,or even something as basic as moral censorship on TV radio and film.
I wouldn't trust Iran not to use a nuke by proxy ie hand it over to a nice group to do the dirty work.

So in order to stop this extremely hypothetical situation (with no supporting evidence other than wild speculation and personal preconceptions) from occuring, you think it is appropriate to start another middle eastern conflict that has the potential to escalate into the next world war?

The number and scope of the potential unintended negative consequences from this misadventure are staggering.

How many deaths would be acceptable losses in order to make you feel safer?

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote:

So in order to stop this extremely hypothetical situation (with no supporting evidence other than wild speculation and personal preconceptions) from occuring,

Theres nothing hypothetical about Iran supporting terrorism unless you think groups they support are freedom fighters.Thats a subjective opinion on either side.
Never smoke without fire though.
Personally I'd remain concerned with Iran getting nukes, there wouldn't be enough scrutiny such is the nature of that volatile brutal theocracy imho.
Of course there are probably countries as bad that already have them..
But as they say, we are where we are and where we are is at a position of at least trying to stop another dodgy country having them.

How many deaths would be acceptable losses in order to make you feel safer?

I don't see any reference in his post which you quoted, outlining any position on War with Iran;just a position on them having nukes.
Why your loaded question so?
Misconception on your part perhaps?

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote:

Theres nothing hypothetical about Iran supporting terrorism unless you think groups they support are freedom fighters.Thats a subjective opinion on either side.
Never smoke without fire though.
Personally I'd remain concerned with Iran getting nukes, there wouldn't be enough scrutiny such is the nature of that volatile brutal theocracy imho.
Of course there are probably countries as bad that already have them..
But as they say, we are where we are and where we are is at a position of at least trying to stop another dodgy country having them.

That assumes 3 things
1. That the Iranians are indeed building nuclear weapons, despite all the IAEA reports to the contrary
2. that it is possible to stop them if they are determined to do so
3. If we do stop them through force of arms or a devastating sanctions regime, that this will make the world a safer place.

None of those 3 assumptions are supported by the weight of evidence.

I don't see any reference in his post which you quoted, outlining any position on War with Iran;just a position on them having nukes.
Why your loaded question so?
Misconception on your part perhaps?

well the theme of this thread is whether or not America will/should attack Iran on the pretext that they are 'seeking nuclear weapons of mass destruction'
I'm not saying that I think Iran having Nukes is a good thing only that a Nuclear Iran wouldn't be much more dangerous than a Nuclear armed Pakistan or Israel or United States. (I think a new non proliferation treaty should be negotiated that compels all nuclear armed states to disarm and this would be a much better solution in the long term than allowing a chosen few to have the ultimate weapon and to invade anyone who tries to challenge their supremacy.) But the implications of Tristame's position are that we should forcibly persuade or prevent them from pursuing nuclear technology, and in the current geo political climate, that means only one thing, Military action.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

I'm not saying that I think Iran having Nukes is a good thing

Hard to disagree with that stance.

only that a Nuclear Iran wouldn't be much more dangerous than a Nuclear armed Pakistan or Israel or United States.

Thats debateable.
In my view if you keep proliferating the bomb to every tom dick and harry country,you are bound to get to a few who are wreckless with it eventually.

(I think a new non proliferation treaty should be negotiated that compels all nuclear armed states to disarm and this would be a much better solution in the long term than allowing a chosen few to have the ultimate weapon and to invade anyone who tries to challenge their supremacy.)

I'd like Grandmother to be back from the dead in her wanderly wagon too but thats as equally unrealistic.
As Mrs Thatcher once famously said about ending the existing countries nuclear deterrent-" You can't uninvent the nuclear bomb"

But the implications of Tristame's position are that we should forcibly persuade or prevent them from pursuing nuclear technology, and in the current geo political climate, that means only one thing, Military action.

It means sending them to coventry.It might mean UNSC agreed actions whatever they may be.
You think it means (and the premise of the thread starters thread) unilateral U.S action.
I doubt the current administration would get that past their increasingly doubting public.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

As Mrs Thatcher once famously said about ending the existing countries nuclear deterrent-" You can't uninvent the nuclear bomb"It means sending them to coventry.It might mean UNSC agreed actions whatever they may be.
You think it means (and the premise of the thread starters thread) unilateral U.S action.

The Nuclear bomb can not be un-invented, but massive nuclear arsenals can be.

Iran are understandably annoyed that the U.S. and Israel, who have more than enough nukes between them to blow up the entire planet several times over, are ordering them not to produce nuclear fuel or build a nuclear power plant. It is this kind of arrogance and supremacist attitude that is driving these countries towards developing their own nuclear programs.

There are already treaties banning biological warfare that have been reasonably successful and there is no reason (other than the Intransigence of the U.S. administration) why a similar anti nuke treaty would be impossible.

It's easy to detect any material breaches of the treaty and if that ever happened there would be sanctions against the aggressors

I doubt the current administration would get that past their increasingly doubting public.

The white house has already succeeded in getting the Dems to drop a motion that would prohibit any strike against Iran without congressional approval. The reason given was that they 'need to have a credible threat of attack' in order to bully the Iranians into complying with U.S. demands. It's a very very fine line between a credible threat of violence, and the use of violence, and that line can be crossed for even the most inane reasons, real or invented.

FYI

Akrasia wrote:

(I think a new non proliferation treaty should be negotiated that compels all nuclear armed states to disarm and this would be a much better solution in the long term than allowing a chosen few to have the ultimate weapon and to invade anyone who tries to challenge their supremacy.)

That's the essence of the current treaty.

“The States concluding this Treaty…Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament.”

"Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

Akrasia

FYI wrote:

That's the essence of the current treaty.

“The States concluding this Treaty…Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament.”

"Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

yeah I know that, the whole point of that treaty was a bargain between the 5 nuclear powers and the rest of the world, that they would begin disarming on the condition the non nuclear powers wouldn't pursue nuclear programs of their own.

Well, The U.S. shattered non proliferation by refusing to decommission their own arsenal, but more importantly by helping Israel to secretly acquire nukes
of their own.

If there is another nuclear arms race, it will be entirely the fault of the United States and her allies, and if America attacks Iran now, at least 10 years before their alleged program could be completed, it will only make others more determined to acquire nukes before they too get attacked

Hotblack Desiato

Akrasia wrote:

Well, The U.S. shattered non proliferation by refusing to decommission their own arsenal

Down with US imperialist running dogs!

Oh wait.... USSR, China, Britain and France all held onto their nukes too, which was their intention all along.

InFront

Tristrame wrote:

I wouldn't trust Iran not to use a nuke by proxy ie hand it over to a nice group to do the dirty work.

Who, Hizbollah? I wouldn't trust Hizbollah to throw a dart, never mind a nuclear warhead. You honestly think Iran, the theocracy you oppose, will (a) reject the self-made fatwa and make the weapon and (b) sell the weapon to Hizbollah to fire at innocent Palestinians and even more unlikely (c) the third holiest site in all of Islam?

Nobody seems interested in explaining their proof, or at the very least explaining where they are picking these ideas up from.

Equally uninterested are they in saying how nuclear energy = nuclear bomb.

When the Ayatollah introduced stem cell research into Iran (one of the first ME countries to legislate in favour of this) who here thought he was trying to kill babies? Nobody. So why does energy = bomb? Iran needs nuclear energy, it has the right to it in law, who here can give a goiod reason for this not to happen? All we've had so far is gossip and conspiracy theories.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

The Nuclear bomb can not be un-invented, but massive nuclear arsenals can be.

Whats the point in that? 3 is as bad as 33 or 333.

Iran are understandably annoyed that the U.S. and Israel, who have more than enough nukes between them to blow up the entire planet several times over, are ordering them not to produce nuclear fuel or build a nuclear power plant. It is this kind of arrogance and supremacist attitude that is driving these countries towards developing their own nuclear programs.

I thought they didn't mind them having nuclear power plants but want to stop them enriching uranium to bomb quality.That is what is understandable.
Whats also understandable is Iran's wanting to have this bomb.

There are already treaties banning biological warfare that have been reasonably successful and there is no reason (other than the Intransigence of the U.S. administration) why a similar anti nuke treaty would be impossible.

Thats pie in the sky.No state with nukes is going to risk unilaterally destroying them when an enemy could have one hidden away somewhere.

It's easy to detect any material breaches of the treaty and if that ever happened there would be sanctions against the aggressors

More pie in the sky.

The white house has already succeeded in getting the Dems to drop a motion that would prohibit any strike against Iran without congressional approval.
The reason given was that they 'need to have a credible threat of attack' in order to bully the Iranians into complying with U.S. demands.

Ah come on now,thats a majorly loaded over simplification.
One quick google turned up : this

"You've got the legislative world and then you have the real world," Mr. Obey said. "In the real world if Bush tried to attack Iran without coming to Congress for approval, I think you would really have people start to make big noise about everything from impeachment to a total [war funding] cutoff."

Manic Moran

There are already treaties banning biological warfare that have been reasonably successful and there is no reason (other than the Intransigence of the U.S. administration) why a similar anti nuke treaty would be impossible.

I don't know about the other signatories, but the reason the US was fine with it was that they had plenty of nukes which are cheaper and a lot safer to hold on to. They just made an announcement that "Instead of responding like with like, we'll just use a nuke in response to any form of NBC attack." There is no such 'resort' if nukes are gotten rid of.

NTM

Akrasia

ninja900 wrote:

Down with US imperialist running dogs!

Oh wait.... USSR, China, Britain and France all held onto their nukes too, which was their intention all along.

But how many of them secretly helped to arm volatile middle eastern states?

The Actions of the U.S. sent a very loud message that they won't ever give up their nuclear weapons and that they will work to ensure that only they get to decide who has a right to self defence. With this kind of arrogance, of course nuclear proliferation will occur.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Whats the point in that? 3 is as bad as 33 or 333.I thought they didn't mind them having nuclear power plants but want to stop them enriching uranium to bomb quality.That is what is understandable.
Whats also understandable is Iran's wanting to have this bomb.

Um, a few isolated nuclear bombs in the world won;t have the potential to spark off a nuclear holocaust. I don't know why people think the principle of Mutually assured destruction is comforting, any tiny mistake and it's game over for everyone. There are at least 2,000 American nukes on hair trigger alert. If there is ever an attack or a false alarm that goes too far, then it's armagedon. The existence of these massive arsenals of weapons makes all of us far less safe, not the other way around.

one nuclear bomb is a deterrent, it is not an offensive weapon because if anyone uses such a weapon, they will face massive retaliation from the rest of the world.

Thats pie in the sky.No state with nukes is going to risk unilaterally destroying them when an enemy could have one hidden away somewhere.
More pie in the sky.

That's why they don't do it unilaterally, there has to be a treaty backed up with an appropriate inspections regime. But even if there are still a few 'last resort' nukes stored away in secret, it still makes the world a much safer place if the hair triggers are dismantled and we're not always on the brink of disaster

Ah come on now,thats a majorly loaded over simplification.
One quick google turned up : this

do you really think the U.S. will impeach a president in the middle of a new war?
Can you point me towards a single U.S. military encounter that wasn't wholeheartedly supported by the domestic Media and both political parties (at least in the opening salvos...) American politicians are not 'anti-war', they are 'anti- losing wars'. Bush's government have been known for decades as 'the crazies', they genuinely believe that they can achieve their political economic and military objectives through the use of overwhelming force and intimidation.
There are lots of politicians in the U.S. on both sides of the house that believe that the war in Iraq was a good idea but just poorly executed (including Hilary Clinton)

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

But how many of them secretly helped to arm volatile middle eastern states?

Granted, none. They were all pretty open about it and didn't much bother with secrecy.

NTM

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Um, a few isolated nuclear bombs in the world won;t have the potential to spark off a nuclear holocaust. I don't know why people think the principle of Mutually assured destruction is comforting, any tiny mistake and it's game over for everyone.

Good for you for thinking that-now convince the powers that be.

There are at least 2,000 American nukes on hair trigger alert. If there is ever an attack or a false alarm that goes too far, then it's armagedon.

62 years and counting.

The existence of these massive arsenals of weapons makes all of us far less safe, not the other way around.

62 years and counting.

one nuclear bomb is a deterrent, it is not an offensive weapon because if anyone uses such a weapon, they will face massive retaliation from the rest of the world.

True.

That's why they don't do it unilaterally, there has to be a treaty backed up with an appropriate inspections regime. But even if there are still a few 'last resort' nukes stored away in secret, it still makes the world a much safer place if the hair triggers are dismantled and we're not always on the brink of disaster

Given that the UNSC bargain Z right back to A before they pass any resolution, the likely hood of that is zero in todays world I think.
It's pie in the sky.

do you really think the U.S. will impeach a president in the middle of a new war?

I don't think there will be a new war,theres too much scrutiny now.Bush can blow all he likes but he's pretty much blown his chance-hence the new conversion to global warming prevention.

Can you point me towards a single U.S. military encounter that wasn't wholeheartedly supported by the domestic Media and both political parties (at least in the opening salvos...)

No need to.

American politicians are not 'anti-war', they are 'anti- losing wars'. Bush's government have been known for decades as 'the crazies', they genuinely believe that they can achieve their political economic and military objectives through the use of overwhelming force and intimidation.

Still ? I'd agree with you but they are learning a hard lesson.
Put it to you this way, their latest effort isn't going to result in Iraqi's singing flowers in your hair- if it doesn't what does that do only minoritise the war view further.

There are lots of politicians in the U.S. on both sides of the house that believe that the war in Iraq was a good idea but just poorly executed (including Hilary Clinton)

And there are many that think the opposite.

Hogmeister B

Akrasia wrote:

Can you point me towards a single U.S. military encounter that wasn't wholeheartedly supported by the domestic Media and both political parties (at least in the opening salvos...)

I think the republicans may have opposed the Mexican-American war- Abe Lincoln definitely did.

Hogmeister B

Tristrame wrote:

62 years and counting..

Kissinger recently said we only survived the cuban missile crisis through sheer luck. also in 1995 the launch of an eu weather satellite from norway almost led the russians to nuke everything in sight.

Manic Moran

There was also the Stanislav Petrov incident in 1983.

The thing being that ultimately, people are in charge of the things, they know exactly what pushing the button entails, and they are only going to go all the way if there's a damned good reason to.

NTM

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

There was also the Stanislav Petrov incident in 1983.

The thing being that ultimately, people are in charge of the things, they know exactly what pushing the button entails, and they are only going to go all the way if there's a damned good reason to.

NTM

except for the fact that in a nuclear war, the 'defending side' would only have a few short minutes to assess the situation and make a decision before it would be too late. Hair triggers are by definition extremely sensitive and likely to go off by accident, but in the age of MAD, the deterrent is only seen as credible if a retaliation is guaranteed as soon as hostile launches are detected...

Hotblack Desiato

Akrasia wrote:

except for the fact that in a nuclear war, the 'defending side' would only have a few short minutes to assess the situation and make a decision before it would be too late. Hair triggers are by definition extremely sensitive and likely to go off by accident, but in the age of MAD, the deterrent is only seen as credible if a retaliation is guaranteed as soon as hostile launches are detected...

:rolleyes: Here we go again. You've already been told that the hairtrigger policy went out 40+ years ago when the idea that a sneak attack by a force of Soviet/US/klingon/whatever bombers could destroy your ability to retaliate if you didn't attack as soon as a warning arrived. This was only really credible when the main means of retaliating was also by nuclear armed bombers, not ICBMS, MRBMs and especially SLBMs.

The fact that the reported 'close calls' didn't immediately result in the launching of a nuclear strike proves that neither of the superpowers was still employing a 'hairtrigger' policy.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

except for the fact that in a nuclear war, the 'defending side' would only have a few short minutes to assess the situation and make a decision before it would be too late. Hair triggers are by definition extremely sensitive and likely to go off by accident, but in the age of MAD, the deterrent is only seen as credible if a retaliation is guaranteed as soon as hostile launches are detected...

Both of which are exactly what happened: In all cases, the humans in the loop had a quick think about the situation, and decided that on balance, it would be better to hold fire: i.e. The people on the triggers have been shown to err on the side of caution. Petrov had half a dozen missiles coming at him, so the systems told him, and he did nothing. Of course, he was removed from his postion for failing to carry out his duty to respond, even though it was acknowledged that he was right, but that doesn't eliminate the problem that inherently, humans don't want to nuke the world out of existance. Hence the plot behind movies like Dr Strangelove and Wargames: Take the restraining effect of the human out of the loop, and things become more dangerous.

Oh, and just for the sake of definition, a hair trigger is no more likely to go off by accident than a regular one. Compare a 2lb trigger pull to a 5lb trigger pull on a pistol: Both will require a conscious effort by the shooter to pull back on the trigger. It's just less effort once the decision has been made.

NTM