Interesting opinion piece about the possibility of nuclear weapons being used against the US and possible outcomes.
The Iranian Situation is deteriorating into a situation with few possible outcomes.
Nuclear Brinksmanship is back, similar to the cold war.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html
Honestly, I think the Belmont Club is pretty inane stuff generally, and this is typical. First off, chemical weapons are, despite all the hype, no more destructive than high explosives on a pound-for-pound basis. Biological weapons only slightly more effective. So we’re really talking about nuclear weapons.
Which, as the author basically admits, are the exclusive preserve of states. So unless you think there’s a state out there with nuclear weapons in sight that is willing to trade New York for its own total annihilation (hint: not Iran), then the future is not nearly as terrifying as this guy would make it sound.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Honestly, I think the Belmont Club is pretty inane stuff generally, and this is typical. First off, chemical weapons are, despite all the hype, no more destructive than high explosives on a pound-for-pound basis. Biological weapons only slightly more effective. So we’re really talking about nuclear weapons.
Which, as the author basically admits, are the exclusive preserve of states. So unless you think there’s a state out there with nuclear weapons in sight that is willing to trade New York for its own total annihilation (hint: not Iran), then the future is not nearly as terrifying as this guy would make it sound.[/quote]
Well put.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Honestly, I think the Belmont Club is pretty inane stuff generally, and this is typical. First off, chemical weapons are, despite all the hype, no more destructive than high explosives on a pound-for-pound basis. Biological weapons only slightly more effective. So we’re really talking about nuclear weapons.
Which, as the author basically admits, are the exclusive preserve of states. So unless you think there’s a state out there with nuclear weapons in sight that is willing to trade New York for its own total annihilation (hint: not Iran), then the future is not nearly as terrifying as this guy would make it sound.[/quote]
How about 1/2 of Iran…as their president has stated he is willing to give up.
[quote]hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Honestly, I think the Belmont Club is pretty inane stuff generally, and this is typical. First off, chemical weapons are, despite all the hype, no more destructive than high explosives on a pound-for-pound basis. Biological weapons only slightly more effective. So we’re really talking about nuclear weapons.
Which, as the author basically admits, are the exclusive preserve of states. So unless you think there’s a state out there with nuclear weapons in sight that is willing to trade New York for its own total annihilation (hint: not Iran), then the future is not nearly as terrifying as this guy would make it sound.
How about 1/2 of Iran…as their president has stated he is willing to give up.
[/quote]
OK, even if we take Ahmedinejad at his word, and assume he is a religious fanatic who believes in an imminent Apocalypse (just like Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye and steveo), here’s the thing - he’s not really in charge! The mullahs are and always have been.
An Iranian bomb leads to a Cold War style balance of terror in the Middle East, an emboldened Iran, the possibility of a regional arms race…none of these are good things. But they are a far, far cry from us trading cities with some nameless Islamic entity.
Pakistan and North Korea are both significantly scarier nuclear states than Iran, yet you don’t see a moronic drumbeat for war with them in Washington do you?
But.
But.
They don’t have oil.
Get with the program.
Kim Jong Il may be a tyrant, but he’s no fool. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking another country, ANY other country.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Kim Jong Il may be a tyrant, but he’s no fool. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking another country, ANY other country.[/quote]
I agree, you need a very special kind of fool, foolish enough to attack another country and risk everything.
You guys seem to have found such a fool however.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I agree, you need a very special kind of fool, foolish enough to attack another country and risk everything.
You guys seem to have found such a fool however.
[/quote]
And yet the Republic remains . . .
[quote]eic wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
I agree, you need a very special kind of fool, foolish enough to attack another country and risk everything.
You guys seem to have found such a fool however.
And yet the Republic remains . . .[/quote]
Even Calligula and Nero couldn’t destroy the Republic.
Not immediatly anyway.