I want Iran to have nukes. Historically, a country that acquired nukes always became more stable and the region became more peaceful. Very recent examples include Israel, which threatened to nuke the entire region and subsequently survived an Egyptian beat-down, and then we have Ukraine, who gave up their nukes only to be invaded by Russia.
Nuclear weapons have only stopped wars, they have never started them.
Are you saying that North Korea has become more stable since it developed nuclear technology? I thought we were just ignoring them as the outlier in the situation. Anyway, they haven't developed the missile technology to use them yet so they don't really count at all.
I'm not saying it is more stable, but it hasn't really degraded much. (not that I imagine it could)I'm not sure how not-stupid [Iran is]. They knowingly stepped into a situation where the UN would impose extremely harsh restrictions on them. That doesn't sound like something an intelligent, self-aware country would do.
Now you're implying that Russia is not an intelligent, self-aware country. I'm really confused about how you imagine foreign countries.
I think MAD definitely works, but it only works because there is a very real threat of actual mutual destruction. The Cold War showed that politicians are probably dumb enough to actually do it, too. I'm not sure the risk of nuclear annihilation is worth the benefit of decreased violence.
If nukes stop wars then there is a much higher chance that we will find life outside of our solar system. Thanks for this, Rushy!!
If nukes stop wars then there is a much higher chance that we will find life outside of our solar system. Thanks for this, Rushy!!
You still mad bout dat bro?
I think MAD definitely works, but it only works because there is a very real threat of actual mutual destruction. The Cold War showed that politicians are probably dumb enough to actually do it, too. I'm not sure the risk of nuclear annihilation is worth the benefit of decreased violence.
If anything the Cold War is the ultimate proof that nuclear weapons stop wars. The Cold War would have most likely turned hot if it was just the US versus Russia and nuclear weapons hadn't been discovered yet. I'd also like to say that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if it had nuclear weapons, or even if it had, I bet NATO would have more actively intervened to stop the invasion.
Yeah, but there were so many cases where the cold war almost went hot, and if it had we probably wouldn't be hanging out on a forum right now. There's the famous case during the Cuban Missile Crisis where a Russian sub almost used their missiles, for example.
I want Iran to have nukes. Historically, a country that acquired nukes always became more stable and the region became more peaceful. Very recent examples include Israel, which threatened to nuke the entire region and subsequently survived an Egyptian beat-down, and then we have Ukraine, who gave up their nukes only to be invaded by Russia.
Nuclear weapons have only stopped wars, they have never started them.
I think this position is problematic for a few reasons. For one thing I think it ignores the specifics of the situation around Iran today, and I just don't think there are enough similarities between the examples you mention and the status quo with respect to Iran. The most obvious differences to me are the religious ideologies of the states in question and the high degree of multipolarity.
I think the primary threat from Iranian nuclearization is less that Iran will first strike someone (Israel) and more that it all but requires their neighbors to follow suit. Saudi Arabia's alliance with Pakistan (and material support for its nuclear program) can be viewed almost exclusively through that lens. If Saudi Arabia and Iran both have nukes, then there's good reasons to believe that the proliferation will spread to neighbors like UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc. I really don't want to see what the Mid East would be like if half of the region had nukes.
This is obviously super simplistic. There's no real way to know where Iranian prolif would spread. Several of those nations are NPT ratifiers, the UN and IAEA would get involved, and who the fuck knows how Russia and China would respond. But that, to me, is the frightening bit.
I disagree with you that history is good evidence in favor of 'proliferation=security.' I don't at all dispute that your statement is empirically true to this point in time, but nuclear weapons just haven't been around for that long, and they've been concentrated in the hands of a few states, most of which have exceptionally similar ideologies. I think it would be a mistake to draw sweeping conclusions from the very limited empirical data that exists. It's like flipping a coin 50 times and getting 25 heads/25 tails. The coin might appear to be fair, but we've haven't flipped enough times to know for sure.
This is ultimately where I disagree with Waltz et al.: I think the logic holds between two states guided by rational (read: material) self-interest; but, such a restricted model doesn't say anything about multipolar conflicts or states guided by non-rational interests. Personally, I think those scenarios are the rule and not the exception. In my view, anything like an objective rationality doesn't exist anyway. It's always axiomatic, and it's always cultural.
And, if we're wrong, we're really, really fucked. Conflicts and violence suck, but not as much as maybe going extinct from nuclear winter or whatever.
Yeah, but there were so many cases where the cold war almost went hot, and if it had we probably wouldn't be hanging out on a forum right now. There's the famous case during the Cuban Missile Crisis where a Russian sub almost used their missiles, for example.
You know what they call an "almost war"? Not a war. Even the name Cold War only exists because calling it a full on war wouldn't describe the situation, since a war between Russia and the US never happened.
Okay, but in the case of nuclear weapons 'almost war' only has to become actual war once to destroy everything.
Iran has historically acted the same way world powers do, that is, in their own self interest. I don't see how their religion or culture impacts that.
I think the primary threat from Iranian nuclearization is less that Iran will first strike someone (Israel) and more that it all but requires their neighbors to follow suit. Saudi Arabia's alliance with Pakistan (and material support for its nuclear program) can be viewed almost exclusively through that lens. If Saudi Arabia and Iran both have nukes, then there's good reasons to believe that the proliferation will spread to neighbors like UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc. I really don't want to see what the Mid East would be like if half of the region had nukes.
I doubt Iran would first strike someone because that would be suicide. As I argued with Tausami, Iran isn't a country full of idiots. They have some religious nuts, yes, but not the kind that offs themselves. They have enemies they want to destroy, but like all countries, they want to destroy their enemies without destroying themselves in the process.
I disagree with you that history is good evidence in favor of 'proliferation=security.' I don't at all dispute that your statement is empirically true to this point in time, but nuclear weapons just haven't been around for that long, and they've been concentrated in the hands of a few states, most of which have exceptionally similar ideologies. I think it would be a mistake to draw sweeping conclusions from the very limited empirical data that exists. It's like flipping a coin 50 times and getting 25 heads/25 tails. The coin might appear to be fair, but we've haven't flipped enough times to know for sure.
"You're right, but you're not right enough!" Lol, okay.
When it comes to first-strike states being a bother to you, I would be more worried about Israel. They seem to be really intent on making sure they can fire off nukes in any direction and have their Iron Dome system fend off anyone who tries to fight back.
Well, Israel is not crazy enough to use them, for one simple reason. If they used them first, it would be too soon. If they used them second, it would be too late. And in either case, any country they used them against would ultimately be a Pyrrhic victory. Sure, you can destroy Tehran, but then the fall-out reaches Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Not a good idea, is it?
I think the Government of Iran, which is not led by the President of that country, who I think is actually pretty sane, but rather the Ayatollahs, who are anything BUT sane, is crazy enough to want to use a bomb. They are not quite as crazy as North Korea, but they are close. Granted, with Ahmadinejad gone, maybe not, because that is one level of crazy gone, but who knows. But arming the entire Middle East with nukes is probably a VERY bad idea.
My issue with nuclear proliferation is that I worry about a nuke going missing in to the hands of an irrational actor who does the all-time greatest suicide bombing. It seems to me that the more nations have nukes, the more likely this is to occur. Not to mention this could be a way for a state to indirectly nuke an enemy.
If you can assuage this view please do so.
I don't know if you mean self-preservation or national interests. Sure, I think nations generally want to keep being nations. Aside from that general desire, I think Israel and Ukraine are not similar to Iran. And, I can definitely think of examples of nations that acted counter to what we would call 'rational self interest.' WWI is replete with them. The Willy-Nicky letters (http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Willy-Nicky_Telegrams) are an especially good example. Without going into a whole thing, I think they demonstrate that nations and their leaders can behave counter to their own interests (and the interests of their citizens) because they believe that they have no other choices. Nicolas says things like, " The indignation in Russia shared fully by me is enormous. I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war," and, "It is technically impossible to stop our military preparations which were obligatory owing to Austria's mobilisation." I think a nuclear Iran would have plenty of opportunities for national interests to override self-preservation.
I agree. I said I don't think Iran would first strike Israel. I tried to articulate that the danger to me is the proliferation that happens in the region because of Iran. This is what I'm getting at with Pakistan. Saudia Arabia currently provides material support for Pakistan's nuclear program as a quid pro quo for nuclear arms if Iran gets the bomb. If Iran gets the bomb, Pakistan hooks up Saudi Arabia. Super clever way of achieving some measure of nuclear deterrence without everyone getting all in your shit for having a bomb yourself. If Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have bombs, then there's probably enormous pressure on nations like Turkey and Syria to follow suit. Syria already has a history of trying to get a bomb.
That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that it doesn't matter how well the data fit your hypothesis if there aren't enough data points to draw any conclusions at all. Just as 50 coin flips cannot confirm the hypothesis that the coin is fair, I don't think that there have been enough conflicts involving nuclear nations to confirm the MAD hypotheses (I'd rather not test that hypothesis at all). That the coin appears fair so far is irrelevant. For example, your statement about nukes only ever stopping wars and not starting them was just as true at the end of 1945 as it is today. By your logic we could have concluded in 1945 that history proves that nukes only end wars and don't start them!
I'm not worried about Iran first striking Israel. Doesn't Israel just prove that there are easily conceivable scenarios in which MAD breaks down? MAD depends on mutuality. If Israel has nukes and a multi-layered missile defense shield, and if Iran suddenly gets nukes, isn't that a reasonable scenario for Israel first striking Iran with nukes? That makes it sound like it would be pretty bad for Iran to get nukes.
Like I said, how would Israel use them without fallout eventually killing them? That would be a bit stupid.They're God's chosen people on his chosen land. Surely God wouldn't let Jews be wiped out...
That has nothing to do with it, and just shows that you are an anti-religious fool. Irrespective of religion, Israel isn't stupid. They're not going to do something that deliberately gets themselves killed.
That's true. But the Ayatollahs are borderline psychotic. Perhaps not quite as crazy as North Korea, but damned close.
1st off, I live in Iowa. I have never even visited Israel, and I have no relatives there. Although I am supportive of Mr. Netanyahu, he in no way can be defined as "my Prime Minister" any more than Queen Elizabeth, whom I also admire, can be called "my Queen". Sadly, Mr. Obama CAN be defined as my President, as much as I regret that fact.
That having been said, no, I don't think Mr. Netanyahu is nearly stupid enough to use a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Russia knows it's powerful enough to fight sanctions fairly successfully in the UN and elsewhere. They're a completely different case. They're permanent members of the Security Council, for christ's sake. Iran, on the other hand, is pretty much helpless in the face of the international community.
Russia knows it's powerful enough to fight sanctions fairly successfully in the UN and elsewhere. They're a completely different case. They're permanent members of the Security Council, for christ's sake. Iran, on the other hand, is pretty much helpless in the face of the international community.
Iran is a major trading partner with China. The sanctions ultimately didn't do a whole lot more than say "we don't like you." They were hurt no more than Russia was. The UN is a joke.
"Palestine"? Seriously? That's a joke, and not even a funny one. Since no nation called "Palestine" exists, there is no one to treat, humanely or otherwise. There are Arabs under military occupation who should be forcibly deported, along with Arabs of Israel whose citizenship should be revoked and they also should be deported.
You know, it occurs to me that Iran may want nukes, not to wipe out Israel with them, but to prevent themselves from being wiped out.
Right now, Israel has nukes (so we assume anyway) and Iran does not. If Iran were to go to war with Israel, Israel may just nuke them out of spite. If Iran had nukes, they would not likely be nuked in response to the war.
Also, it would put Iran in a position of safety as few would want to attack Iran. Such as Israel.
It used to exist, before it was subjugated.
Aww. It sounds like someone needs a nap. Until the Occupied Arabs stop shooting rockets at innocent civilians, and using kids as human shields, and so-forth... while you're at it, tell me about "Palestine". Tell me the name of any leaders it had before Arafat. What kind of government did it have? What currency did it use? Can you show me a political map displaying a country that was ever called "Palestine"? I wait with bated breath (not) the answers to these questions that have no answers, since the territory was always controlled by others. But go ahead. Try.
Aww. It sounds like someone needs a nap. Until the Occupied Arabs stop shooting rockets at innocent civilians, and using kids as human shields, and so-forth... while you're at it, tell me about "Palestine". Tell me the name of any leaders it had before Arafat. What kind of government did it have? What currency did it use? Can you show me a political map displaying a country that was ever called "Palestine"? I wait with bated breath (not) the answers to these questions that have no answers, since the territory was always controlled by others. But go ahead. Try.
See, and this is exactly my point. Until you stop seeing a race of people as an infestation, there's no way you should be trusted with weaponry of any sort. Would you give a gun to a blind man?
As for your question of 'what is Palastine'? It's a region of the Middle East currently colonized by European powers with questionable, outdated historical claims to the area but a definite White Man's Burden complex. Pretty simple question, in my opinion.
bunch of idiot words not about proliferation
I could report that for insults, but I won't, because I thought it was funny.
IRUSH, I agree. And Tausami and I are arguing that Israel should not have them, because of how they treat "Palestinians". I submit that he is full of crap, and I think he needs a nap to clear his head a little. "Palestinians" get treated the way they do because they insist on doing horrible things. The conversation actually does not involve either you or Gary.
No, I am talking about Gary calling me a cunt.
No, I am talking about Gary calling me a cunt.
Ah, my bad.
No, I am talking about Gary calling me a cunt.
It used to exist, before it was subjugated.
Again, same questions. Tell me about "Palestine". Tell me the name of any leaders it had before Arafat. What kind of government did it have? What currency did it use? Can you show me a political map displaying a country that was ever called "Palestine"?
It used to exist, before it was subjugated.
Again, same questions. Tell me about "Palestine". Tell me the name of any leaders it had before Arafat. What kind of government did it have? What currency did it use? Can you show me a political map displaying a country that was ever called "Palestine"?
You don't need any of those things to have a natural claim to the land.
Back on the topic of Iran, I think we've determined it would ultimately calm the situation to give Iran a full fledged nuclear program. Not only would they have cheaper, cleaner power (I imagine right now they burn tons of oil or coal), but it would place them on a level playing field with the countries around them. Pakistan, India, China, and Russia all have nuclear weapons. Iran has been sort of left out in the cold.
Back on the topic of Iran, I think we've determined it would ultimately calm the situation to give Iran a full fledged nuclear program. Not only would they have cheaper, cleaner power (I imagine right now they burn tons of oil or coal), but it would place them on a level playing field with the countries around them. Pakistan, India, China, and Russia all have nuclear weapons. Iran has been sort of left out in the cold.
On topics not related to angry money-grubbing jews,Back on the topic of Iran, I think we've determined it would ultimately calm the situation to give Iran a full fledged nuclear program. Not only would they have cheaper, cleaner power (I imagine right now they burn tons of oil or coal), but it would place them on a level playing field with the countries around them. Pakistan, India, China, and Russia all have nuclear weapons. Iran has been sort of left out in the cold.
You bring up an interesting point about giving them cleaner power. The Middle East largely runs on its oil production. I wonder how a major country's conversion to nuclear energy would effect the regional economy.
To be honest, the only reason I can think of why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons but Israel or Pakistan should is that the US might end up invading and fucking shit up again if they get them. And that's not really Iran's fault.
It's probably very much a calculated move to avoid destabilizing the region, even from Israel. When the oil industry starts to implode most of the middle east will probably go with it. Mass unemployment and slow economies don't generally make a region more stable. They tend to make Hitler happen. I'd imagine that the governments of the Middle East live in constant fear of the day renewable energy sources replace oil.
But using renewable energy at home would allow for more oil to be exported. That should be pretty beneficial to the region.
But using renewable energy at home would allow for more oil to be exported. That should be pretty beneficial to the region.
He said "...when the oil industry starts to implode" which is referring to the eventuality that the oil will run out since it is a finite resource. Saudi Arabia won't run out for a long time, but Iran isn't quite so lucky. Iran's limited supply combined with China's outrageous consumption will only end in economic depression sooner or later.
But using renewable energy at home would allow for more oil to be exported. That should be pretty beneficial to the region.
He said "...when the oil industry starts to implode" which is referring to the eventuality that the oil will run out since it is a finite resource. Saudi Arabia won't run out for a long time, but Iran isn't quite so lucky. Iran's limited supply combined with China's outrageous consumption will only end in economic depression sooner or later.
If the oil industry is imploding why would they fear its replacement? I think, and hopefully Tausami jumps in to clarify, that he meant the development of renewable energy before the oil is running out.
But using renewable energy at home would allow for more oil to be exported. That should be pretty beneficial to the region.
He said "...when the oil industry starts to implode" which is referring to the eventuality that the oil will run out since it is a finite resource. Saudi Arabia won't run out for a long time, but Iran isn't quite so lucky. Iran's limited supply combined with China's outrageous consumption will only end in economic depression sooner or later.
If the oil industry is imploding why would they fear its replacement? I think, and hopefully Tausami jumps in to clarify, that he meant the development of renewable energy before the oil is running out.
But using renewable energy at home would allow for more oil to be exported. That should be pretty beneficial to the region.
He said "...when the oil industry starts to implode" which is referring to the eventuality that the oil will run out since it is a finite resource. Saudi Arabia won't run out for a long time, but Iran isn't quite so lucky. Iran's limited supply combined with China's outrageous consumption will only end in economic depression sooner or later.
If the oil industry is imploding why would they fear its replacement? I think, and hopefully Tausami jumps in to clarify, that he meant the development of renewable energy before the oil is running out.
They fear it's replacement because solar power won't pay the bills.
By imploding, I think it's meant that oil is no longer profitable/possible to produce to sustain your nation's economy. As such, your budget goes to shit, your people go poor, and the entire region destabilizes as people use the opportunity to mobilize the massive force of desperate and angry people around a common enemy (Jews or America).
I hope, when oil does crumble, that the entire middle east attacks Israel again and the US, not giving anymore fucks about oil in the middle east, leaves them to their own fate.