[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If you don’t think the threat of Iran making portable nuclear dirty bombs for use against Israel and other of its enemies is real, quite simply, you’re retarded.[/quote]
Only a fool would argue otherwise.
Ahh…looks like one has shown up already.[/quote]
Matthew 5:22.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Utter nonsense. History has shown that the minute a rogue state gets their hands on nuclear weapons, they will immediately turn those weapons upon their neighbor, especially when their neighbor is a sworn enemy with a centuries-old grudge. Witness the devastation inflicted upon India and South Korea shortly after Pakistan and North Korea became nuclear-capable, not to mention all of the nukes that ended up in the hands of their terrorist allies. [/quote]
Thanks for the insight, Neville. Good thing your prognostication track record is impeccable.[/quote]
It’s disingenuous to compare a potential hegemon such as Germany in 1939 to Iran in 2013, whose annual defense budget is less than 2% of that of the United States.[/quote]
You’re correct of course, but there are also key differences in the psychological make-up and theocratic make-up of the country as well. In other words, Germany did what it did out of a rational actor’s decisive move. Iran under Ahmedinijab (spell error) not so much at all in my opinion. Now this current Iranian president for all appearances has made a significant moderation in speech and image, however that really wouldn’t have taken much considering who was at the helm before (cue Godwin’s law and Hitler comparison). At any rate I am not convinced they are fully rational actors–them or Korea. There is, too, the possibility that the current president is rational but the next political movement to take office–whether through elections or coup or whatever–is going to go back to being at least partially irrational.
Also, you could look at it through the other perspective–since you posit that States are rational actors, it is in Israel’s best interest to do anything and everything to keep nuclear power out of Irans hands, and thus maintain the monopoly. Further, because it is in Israel’s best interests to do this, they could have a reason to take matters into their own hands when viewing the policy actions or lack thereof in Obama’s administration.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If you don’t think the threat of Iran making portable nuclear dirty bombs for use against Israel and other of its enemies is real, quite simply, you’re retarded.[/quote]
Said the retard[/quote]
No need for ad hominems.
cwill, do you honestly believe that Iran would waste highly enriched radioactive material that it obtained at great cost in human capital and treasure on something as ineffective and speculative as a radiological weapon? The perception of the radiation health risks of such an attack are overstated by an uninformed public. Consequently, the true dangers lie not in the radioactive material, but the initial damage from the conventional explosive and the ensuing psychological and economic effects wrought by fundamental misunderstandings of radiological weapons.[/quote]
I do believe they would along with long range delivery systems. Iran is the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. The economic cost alone from acts of terror are in the hundreds of billions and this is with the use of often simple explosive devices. Imagine just the economic disruption that would ensue if a “dirty” bomb was exploded anywhere in the Middle East. And if Iran had both long rage nuclear capability and the ability to use or threaten the use of a “dirty” bomb nothing could be done to stop them. The simple threat of starting a nuclear war with Israel would render the U.N. and every other country helpless. When your enemy wants to wipe you off the face off the Earth, you don’t allow them to means to do so.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Utter nonsense. History has shown that the minute a rogue state gets their hands on nuclear weapons, they will immediately turn those weapons upon their neighbor, especially when their neighbor is a sworn enemy with a centuries-old grudge. Witness the devastation inflicted upon India and South Korea shortly after Pakistan and North Korea became nuclear-capable, not to mention all of the nukes that ended up in the hands of their terrorist allies. [/quote]
Let’s examine these examples a bit more closely shall we?
In the case of Pakistan and India in 1973 there were 3 hegemons with a stake n the outcome. China and the US “leaned” toward Pakistan (a 40 year “gift” of Kissinger) and Soviet Union supported India. The stalemate quashed any question of nuclear arms being used by either side, because the hegemons were readily available to act if needed.
In the case of North Korea, both South Korea and Japan are protected by the US; again a hegemon is in place to put a real butt-hurt on North Korea if needed. (North Korea has not been so supported by China, and knows it. China is a facultative friend in Northeast Asia; and has other reasons to contain North Korea.)
So your examples do not support the notion that mutually assured destruction is not an active deterrent; it is simply a matter of seeing who deters whom and when.
Now then, in the case of Iran, who acts as a deterrent? The US is diminished; by choice and by poverty it may not be a credible threat to Iran’s ambitions. Saudi Arabia? Can’t project its force effective, and so it too will “need” a nuclear deterrent. The Iranian people themselves? Not likely. The last President of Iran and the current supreme leader were notorious for sending children, wrapped with rugs, into mine fields, confident that their reward was in the afterlife. Iran, through decades, has promised that they do not care about living Palestinians: if the land of Palestine were burned by nuclear bombs, but achieved the goal of erasing Jews from Palestine, even at the cost of Palestinian lives, that would have been fine with Ahmadinejad and associates.
Mutually assured destruction works, in the sense of George Kennan, when there is rough parity and all parties have a stake in continuation. I am not so sure that is true of Iran’s regime.
And dear readers, please spare me any wailing that, “The Iranians love their children,too,” since I have seen evidence to the contrary, and it is not I that need to be convinced of their good intentions.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I don’t get as funny a feeling about the Iranians as I do about this country. But I guess I could be wrong. Go figure. [/quote]
I think a prudent man would be reticent to rely strictly on feelings when it comes to a proposition of this magnitude.
You simply can’t dismiss a known terrorist supporting country which has repeatedly and openly called for the total annihilation of its principal adversary at the same time it has aggressively pursued the development of the most devastating weapons ever known. You can’t.
If you or I encounter a known bully on the street that looks you straight in the eye and says, “I’m going to slit your throat,” you can’t dismiss the threat with a feeling and/or opinions of “prominent analysts” that he may very well not do it. You’ve got to deal with it as though he may – your life depends on it.[/quote]
Right, but if I am the Gambino family, I am not going to run down some punk kid in Peoria who boasts that as soon as he saves up enough money to buy that Saturday night special, he’s gonna kick my ass. Maybe that is imprudent. Maybe it’s a good thing I’m not the Gambino family.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If you don’t think the threat of Iran making portable nuclear dirty bombs for use against Israel and other of its enemies is real, quite simply, you’re retarded.[/quote]
Only a fool would argue otherwise.
Ahh…looks like one has shown up already.[/quote]
The findings of several prominent analysts in the field state otherwise. [/quote]
I get it. “Trust prominent analysts with decisions of cataclysmic proportions. Discount historical precedent.” OK. Sure. I’m on board now that I think about it.[/quote]
So we should discount the professional opinions of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question? You, of all people, should be wary about leaving “decisions of cataclysmic proportions” in the hands of policymakers alone. The “historical precedent” is that a dirty bomb attack has never been successfully carried out in the almost 70 years that radioactive materials have been used as an essential primary weapons component. They are almost impossible to transport clandestinely, and the measures taken to reduce their radioactive profiles render them as much less effective. They are also not nearly as potent as the layman or political pundits would have you to believe. As I stated in another thread, Iran certainly possesses chemical weapons capabilities and very likely biological ones as well. Following the nuclear and radiological proliferation paradigm you’ve espoused, how do you explain the “historical precedent” that Iran hasn’t supplied terrorists organizations with the CBRNs they do possess?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Utter nonsense. History has shown that the minute a rogue state gets their hands on nuclear weapons, they will immediately turn those weapons upon their neighbor, especially when their neighbor is a sworn enemy with a centuries-old grudge. Witness the devastation inflicted upon India and South Korea shortly after Pakistan and North Korea became nuclear-capable, not to mention all of the nukes that ended up in the hands of their terrorist allies. [/quote]
Thanks for the insight, Neville. Good thing your prognostication track record is impeccable.[/quote]
It’s disingenuous to compare a potential hegemon such as Germany in 1939 to Iran in 2013, whose annual defense budget is less than 2% of that of the United States.[/quote]
You’re correct of course, but there are also key differences in the psychological make-up and theocratic make-up of the country as well. In other words, Germany did what it did out of a rational actor’s decisive move. Iran under Ahmedinijab (spell error) not so much at all in my opinion. Now this current Iranian president for all appearances has made a significant moderation in speech and image, however that really wouldn’t have taken much considering who was at the helm before (cue Godwin’s law and Hitler comparison). At any rate I am not convinced they are fully rational actors–them or Korea. There is, too, the possibility that the current president is rational but the next political movement to take office–whether through elections or coup or whatever–is going to go back to being at least partially irrational.
Also, you could look at it through the other perspective–since you posit that States are rational actors, it is in Israel’s best interest to do anything and everything to keep nuclear power out of Irans hands, and thus maintain the monopoly. Further, because it is in Israel’s best interests to do this, they could have a reason to take matters into their own hands when viewing the policy actions or lack thereof in Obama’s administration.[/quote]
I can respect the reasons why you may have doubts about the rationality of Iran’s state actors. I am no fan of the regime in Iran, but despite the rhetoric and swaggering, I believe that they are cognizant of the perils of system that they inhabit. We can agree to disagree on that matter. I am making my argument from the systemic level of analysis, while you and others are doing so from the domestic and individual levels, respectively. Under the structural paradigm of Realism, I believe that both state institutions and individual actors freedom of action are curtailed by the anarchic environment of the international system. Power is the currency of international relations, and states are highly incentivized to maximize their relative power gains.
Absolutely. It is within both Israel’s and the United States interests in the region to ensure the continued Israeli nuclear monopoly. The argument that Kenneth Waltz is making in the article, and one I am inclined to agree with, is that nuclear monopoly is inherently unstable. Why is Russia so vehemently opposed to NATO’s’s proposed ABM sites in Eastern Europe? They have the potential to neuter Russian nuclear capabilities, and consequently to undermine the stability that Mutually Ensured Destruction provides.
Nuclear weapons, ironically enough, have proved to be a stabilizing force in the world. States are much less inclined to go to war with one another if their adversaries possess a nuclear umbrella. Historically, systems with unbalanced multi-polarities are the most likely to result in war, while bi-polar systems are inherently the most stable. Southwest Asia is an unbalanced multi-polarity, because Israel is the only state that possesses nuclear capabilities. If Iran joins the ranks of the nuclear weapons states, nuclear monopoly will no longer tilt the balance of power so overwhelmingly in Israel’s favor. Will it limit the freedom of action of Israel and the U.S. in the region? Undoubtedly. Will it help stabilize a historically volatile region? If history is our guide, that is very likely.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Utter nonsense. History has shown that the minute a rogue state gets their hands on nuclear weapons, they will immediately turn those weapons upon their neighbor, especially when their neighbor is a sworn enemy with a centuries-old grudge. Witness the devastation inflicted upon India and South Korea shortly after Pakistan and North Korea became nuclear-capable, not to mention all of the nukes that ended up in the hands of their terrorist allies. [/quote]
Let’s examine these examples a bit more closely shall we?
In the case of Pakistan and India in 1973 there were 3 hegemons with a stake n the outcome. China and the US “leaned” toward Pakistan (a 40 year “gift” of Kissinger) and Soviet Union supported India. The stalemate quashed any question of nuclear arms being used by either side, because the hegemons were readily available to act if needed.
In the case of North Korea, both South Korea and Japan are protected by the US; again a hegemon is in place to put a real butt-hurt on North Korea if needed. (North Korea has not been so supported by China, and knows it. China is a facultative friend in Northeast Asia; and has other reasons to contain North Korea.)
So your examples do not support the notion that mutually assured destruction is not an active deterrent; it is simply a matter of seeing who deters whom and when.
Now then, in the case of Iran, who acts as a deterrent? The US is diminished; by choice and by poverty it may not be a credible threat to Iran’s ambitions. Saudi Arabia? Can’t project its force effective, and so it too will “need” a nuclear deterrent. The Iranian people themselves? Not likely. The last President of Iran and the current supreme leader were notorious for sending children, wrapped with rugs, into mine fields, confident that their reward was in the afterlife. Iran, through decades, has promised that they do not care about living Palestinians: if the land of Palestine were burned by nuclear bombs, but achieved the goal of erasing Jews from Palestine, even at the cost of Palestinian lives, that would have been fine with Ahmadinejad and associates.
Mutually assured destruction works, in the sense of George Kennan, when there is rough parity and all parties have a stake in continuation. I am not so sure that is true of Iran’s regime.
And dear readers, please spare me any wailing that, “The Iranians love their children,too,” since I have seen evidence to the contrary, and it is not I that need to be convinced of their good intentions.
[/quote]
Great post.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Utter nonsense. History has shown that the minute a rogue state gets their hands on nuclear weapons, they will immediately turn those weapons upon their neighbor, especially when their neighbor is a sworn enemy with a centuries-old grudge. Witness the devastation inflicted upon India and South Korea shortly after Pakistan and North Korea became nuclear-capable, not to mention all of the nukes that ended up in the hands of their terrorist allies. [/quote]
Thanks for the insight, Neville. Good thing your prognostication track record is impeccable.[/quote]
It’s disingenuous to compare a potential hegemon such as Germany in 1939 to Iran in 2013, whose annual defense budget is less than 2% of that of the United States.[/quote]
What is their defense budget compared to their GDP?
Using strict percentages in situations like this is silly.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If you don’t think the threat of Iran making portable nuclear dirty bombs for use against Israel and other of its enemies is real, quite simply, you’re retarded.[/quote]
Only a fool would argue otherwise.
Ahh…looks like one has shown up already.[/quote]
The findings of several prominent analysts in the field state otherwise. [/quote]
I get it. “Trust prominent analysts with decisions of cataclysmic proportions. Discount historical precedent.” OK. Sure. I’m on board now that I think about it.[/quote]
So we should discount the professional opinions of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question? [/quote]
Should we discount the professional opinions of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question if those opinions diametrically oppose your individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question?
In other words which team of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question do we trust? What if my team can beat up your team?
Who determines which knowledge is unparalleled?
Why is it unparalleled?[/quote]
If you can produce the sources you speak of, perhaps we can start that process. I can assure you that your camp is much smaller than mine. It seems to me, however, that you have your mind made up about the subject.
Do you care to address the rest of my post?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Utter nonsense. History has shown that the minute a rogue state gets their hands on nuclear weapons, they will immediately turn those weapons upon their neighbor, especially when their neighbor is a sworn enemy with a centuries-old grudge. Witness the devastation inflicted upon India and South Korea shortly after Pakistan and North Korea became nuclear-capable, not to mention all of the nukes that ended up in the hands of their terrorist allies. [/quote]
Thanks for the insight, Neville. Good thing your prognostication track record is impeccable.[/quote]
It’s disingenuous to compare a potential hegemon such as Germany in 1939 to Iran in 2013, whose annual defense budget is less than 2% of that of the United States.[/quote]
What is their defense budget compared to their GDP?
Using strict percentages in situations like this is silly.[/quote]
How so? The statistical methodology I used is by far the most useful when performing a power inventory analysis. Again, Iran spends 2% of what the United States does annually on military expenditures. That relative disparity doesn’t change regardless of GDP, which itself is a poor measure of economic development.
At number 56 Iran spends approximately 2.50% of their GDP on defense. The U.S., approximately 4.60%
At number one, we have the global hegemon, Oman, who spends approximately 11.40% of their GDP.
As you can hopefully see, the relation between defense expenditures as a function of GDP is a poor tool when doing a power analysis. A high percentage budget for military forces can actually be harmful to a state’s long term power, as there are little economic returns for investing in defense. Look at North Korea, for example, who is believed to spend an even greater percentage than Oman.
In international relations, relative power is preeminent.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Utter nonsense. History has shown that the minute a rogue state gets their hands on nuclear weapons, they will immediately turn those weapons upon their neighbor, especially when their neighbor is a sworn enemy with a centuries-old grudge. Witness the devastation inflicted upon India and South Korea shortly after Pakistan and North Korea became nuclear-capable, not to mention all of the nukes that ended up in the hands of their terrorist allies. [/quote]
Thanks for the insight, Neville. Good thing your prognostication track record is impeccable.[/quote]
It’s disingenuous to compare a potential hegemon such as Germany in 1939 to Iran in 2013, whose annual defense budget is less than 2% of that of the United States.[/quote]
What is their defense budget compared to their GDP?
Using strict percentages in situations like this is silly.[/quote]
How so? The statistical methodology I used is by far the most useful when performing a power inventory analysis. Again, Iran spends 2% of what the United States does annually on military expenditures. That relative disparity doesn’t change regardless of GDP, which itself is a poor measure of economic development.
At number 56 Iran spends approximately 2.50% of their GDP on defense. The U.S., approximately 4.60%
At number one, we have the global hegemon, Oman, who spends approximately 11.40% of their GDP.
As you can hopefully see, the relation between defense expenditures as a function of GDP is a poor tool when doing a power analysis. A high percentage budget for military forces can actually be harmful to a state’s long term power, as there are little economic returns for investing in defense. Look at North Korea, for example, who is believed to spend an even greater percentage than Oman.
In international relations, relative power is preeminent. [/quote]
You were trying to say that little ol’ Iran was not a nuclear threat (they only have a defense budget of 2% of the U.S.) my point was, they spend a lot of “reportable” resources on making war and since they are a religious state, more government funds are no doubt channeled in that direction.
Added to the fact that they are governed by a bunch of psycho loonies who HATE the West…makes me think, yea them having nukes is a seriously bad idea.