I will be attending a dinner tonight where Dr. Lamont Colucci will be speaking. I will report what this national security expert has to say about Iran if he speaks on that subject.
[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]
The Cold War was characterized by bi-polarity. By definition, there can only be two great powers in such a system. China certainly wasn’t, and isn’t, a hegemon in Asia. The Cold War ended in 1991, so what explains the relative peace between India and Pakistan for nearly a quarter of a century? Is it perhaps because nuclear weapons are actually a stabilizing force? The United States, while the only hegemon in modern times, is only a regional hegemon.
I will go further and say that it is virtually impossible for a state to become a global hegemon because of the stopping power of water. The only way this can be realistically achieved is if a state developed the capability to render all nuclear weapons deployed against it as ineffective, achieving true nuclear monopoly. More accurately, the U.S. acts as an offshore balancer in East Asia. In the case of the DPRK, states enjoy having buffers. It is infinitely more difficult to carry out an amphibious assault than to invade overland. Naturally, China wants to preserve its buffer in east Asia.
The United States isn’t a credible threat to Iran? No state in the history of the world has ever possessed the power projection capabilities of the U.S. The argument of Iran starting a nuclear arms race in south west Asia is speculative at best, and it falls outside of historical precedent. Why is it that Pakistan, home of the “Islamic bomb,” is subject to the concept of deterrence but not Iran?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[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]
The Cold War was characterized by bi-polarity. By definition, there can only be two great powers in such a system. China certainly wasn’t, and isn’t, a hegemon in Asia. The Cold War ended in 1991, so what explains the relative peace between India and Pakistan for nearly a quarter of a century? Is it perhaps because nuclear weapons are actually a stabilizing force? The United States, while the only hegemon in modern times, is only a regional hegemon.
I will go further and say that it is virtually impossible for a state to become a global hegemon because of the stopping power of water. The only way this can be realistically achieved is if a state developed the capability to render all nuclear weapons deployed against it as ineffective, achieving true nuclear monopoly. More accurately, the U.S. acts as an offshore balancer in East Asia. In the case of the DPRK, states enjoy having buffers. It is infinitely more difficult to carry out an amphibious assault than to invade overland. Naturally, China wants to preserve its buffer in east Asia.
The United States isn’t a credible threat to Iran? No state in the history of the world has ever possessed the power projection capabilities of the U.S. The argument of Iran starting a nuclear arms race in south west Asia is speculative at best, and it falls outside of historical precedent. Why is it that Pakistan, home of the “Islamic bomb,” is subject to the concept of deterrence but not Iran?[/quote]
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Was I now? I believe I was illustrating to Push that his comparison of 1939 Nazi Germany, a potential hegemon in Europe at the time, and 2013 Iran, a minor power in south west Asia, was incredibly erroneous. I didn’t discuss nuclear capability at all in that post. Your relation to GDP quip was equally off base, and you failed to address the meat of my argument. As far as the statistics go for Iran’s defense expenditures, they were provided by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Is Iran an autocratic theocracy? Yes. Is it predominanty led, or even populated by “psycho loonies?” The academic, diplomatic and intelligence communities don’t seem to think so. If the United States democratically elected government was overthrown by the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security of the Islamic Republic of Iran and replaced with a despotic, oppressive Iranian plant, Americans would assuredly harbor some ill will towards Iran.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I would tend to lean toward the professional opinions of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question who tote the Trust But Verify ethos around in their professional briefcases which are chock full of unparalleled knowledge.
By the way, I seem to recall from my studies in history that Herr Chamberlain had unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question at that time. Or he thought he did.[/quote]
As do I.
I was referring to the analysts who produce intelligence products for their clients, exempli gratia, policymakers. If Herr Chamberlain (Sprechen Sie Deutsch?) had studied history more astutely, he would have seen no less than two examples of unbalanced multi-polarity (and consequently, potential hegemons) in the modern era alone. Revolutionary and Napoleonic France (1780-1815), and Wilhelmine Germany. (1890-1914) Regardless, Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasement, or one sided concessions to a potential opponent, has little if any relevance to Iran, a present day middle power in south west Asia.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[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]
The Cold War was characterized by bi-polarity. By definition, there can only be two great powers in such a system. China certainly wasn’t, and isn’t, a hegemon in Asia. The Cold War ended in 1991, so what explains the relative peace between India and Pakistan for nearly a quarter of a century? Is it perhaps because nuclear weapons are actually a stabilizing force? The United States, while the only hegemon in modern times, is only a regional hegemon.
I will go further and say that it is virtually impossible for a state to become a global hegemon because of the stopping power of water. The only way this can be realistically achieved is if a state developed the capability to render all nuclear weapons deployed against it as ineffective, achieving true nuclear monopoly. More accurately, the U.S. acts as an offshore balancer in East Asia. In the case of the DPRK, states enjoy having buffers. It is infinitely more difficult to carry out an amphibious assault than to invade overland. Naturally, China wants to preserve its buffer in east Asia.
The United States isn’t a credible threat to Iran? No state in the history of the world has ever possessed the power projection capabilities of the U.S. The argument of Iran starting a nuclear arms race in south west Asia is speculative at best, and it falls outside of historical precedent. Why is it that Pakistan, home of the “Islamic bomb,” subject to the concept of deterrence but not Iran?[/quote]
Young man, you are deeply and chronically confused.
I would suggest you find someone else to help you out.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[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]
The Cold War was characterized by bi-polarity. By definition, there can only be two great powers in such a system. China certainly wasn’t, and isn’t, a hegemon in Asia. The Cold War ended in 1991, so what explains the relative peace between India and Pakistan for nearly a quarter of a century? Is it perhaps because nuclear weapons are actually a stabilizing force? The United States, while the only hegemon in modern times, is only a regional hegemon.
I will go further and say that it is virtually impossible for a state to become a global hegemon because of the stopping power of water. The only way this can be realistically achieved is if a state developed the capability to render all nuclear weapons deployed against it as ineffective, achieving true nuclear monopoly. More accurately, the U.S. acts as an offshore balancer in East Asia. In the case of the DPRK, states enjoy having buffers. It is infinitely more difficult to carry out an amphibious assault than to invade overland. Naturally, China wants to preserve its buffer in east Asia.
The United States isn’t a credible threat to Iran? No state in the history of the world has ever possessed the power projection capabilities of the U.S. The argument of Iran starting a nuclear arms race in south west Asia is speculative at best, and it falls outside of historical precedent. Why is it that Pakistan, home of the “Islamic bomb,” subject to the concept of deterrence but not Iran?[/quote]
Young man, you are deeply and chronically confused.
I would suggest you find someone else to help you out.
[/quote]
I would argue that you are the one that is deeply and chronically confused, as much of your post fell short of the learning outcomes for an international relations 101 class, particularly on your misuse of very basic terminology. So much so to make it untenable. Try addressing the merit of my post, if you’re able to, rather than responding with a dismissive remark. You’re obviously intelligent, so add to the discussion.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
so add to the discussion.
[/quote]
Don’t hold your breath. You are new to this site, and I admire your eagerness, but you will quickly learn that the majority of the posters in this subforum (look at their join dates and post counts for a guide) are only interested in having like minded individuals stroke their…umm…let’s call it “ego” and act as an echo chamber. Just wait till they start talking about pre-election polling, it’s a riot!!!
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
so add to the discussion.
[/quote]
Don’t hold your breath. You are new to this site, and I admire your eagerness, but you will quickly learn that the majority of the posters in this subforum (look at their join dates and post counts for a guide) are only interested in having like minded individuals stroke their…umm…let’s call it “ego” and act as an echo chamber. Just wait till they start talking about pre-election polling, it’s a riot!!!
[/quote]
Not half as funny as when Herr Bismark’s nationality (at least, what I deduce it probably is) is revealed.
Then we will see the Third Reich comments flying fast and furious.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
You produced precisely one source. One.
Do you honest-to-God think I can’t match or exceed your count with opposing views by credible sources? Really, the number in the camp of intellectuals who think Iran should have the bomb will exceed that of those who don’t? C’mon, man, let’s have a serious discussion.
By the way, why did you change your screen name?
I did. Maybe the posts showed late and you missed them.
[/quote]
The comment I made toward the findings of experts in the field was clearly in reference to the effects of radioactive material dispersed by a conventional explosive. Nothing else. You misunderstood my post.
Yes. There seems to be quite the delay on your posts.
I generally dont like nuclear weapons in the hands of people that actually believe in a “life” after death.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
so add to the discussion.
[/quote]
Don’t hold your breath. You are new to this site, and I admire your eagerness, but you will quickly learn that the majority of the posters in this subforum (look at their join dates and post counts for a guide) are only interested in having like minded individuals stroke their…umm…let’s call it “ego” and act as an echo chamber. Just wait till they start talking about pre-election polling, it’s a riot!!!
[/quote]
Not half as funny as when Herr Bismark’s nationality (at least, what I deduce it probably is) is revealed.
Then we will see the Third Reich comments flying fast and furious. [/quote]
But, Varq, now I am confused: do Gibbering Idiots comprise a nationality?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
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]
The US is a super power. It is the only super power on earth. It has interests in every corner of the globe. Therefore its defense budget is necessarily the largest in the world as a percentage of GDP. Iran by contrast is a regional power with interests that don’t extend far beyond its own borders. Your analogy is patently absurd.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I would tend to lean toward the professional opinions of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question who tote the Trust But Verify ethos around in their professional briefcases which are chock full of unparalleled knowledge.
By the way, I seem to recall from my studies in history that Herr Chamberlain had unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question at that time. Or he thought he did.[/quote]
As do I.
I was referring to the analysts who produce intelligence products for their clients, exempli gratia, policymakers. If Herr Chamberlain (Sprechen Sie Deutsch?) had studied history more astutely, he would have seen no less than two examples of unbalanced multi-polarity (and consequently, potential hegemons) in the modern era alone. Revolutionary and Napoleonic France (1780-1815), and Wilhelmine Germany. (1890-1914) Regardless, Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasement, or one sided concessions to a potential opponent, has little if any relevance to Iran, a present day middle power in south west Asia.[/quote]
A more potent similitude is difficult to imagine. Iran is often referred to as the literal heir to Nazi Germany. Arab nationalists employed Nazi war criminals and adopted their ideology. Like the Nazis they are pathologically anti-Semitic and see the annihilation of Jews as their main goal. They are authoritarian, dictatorial and militaristic and their religious ideology shares much in common with Nazi ideology. Furthermore, they use the same propaganda techniques developed by Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg and act with extreme belligerence on the world stage. Confronted with this belligerence the rest of the world engage in the same sort of appeasement that preceded the Munich crisis.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A more potent similitude is difficult to imagine. Iran is often referred to as the literal heir to Nazi Germany. Arab nationalists employed Nazi war criminals and adopted their ideology. [/quote]
I don’t really have a strong opinion on this, but just want to point out that Iranians aren’t Arab, sooooo…there’s that.
Any bets on what’s gonna happen when the Israelis enter Iranian Airspace
and attempt to do some damage?..I heard Iran is closer than ever to the bomb
now…some reports I’ve read recently is by this January they’ll have it which means
that Israel will attack maybe as soon as December…And they will act very soon,
and yes I’ve heard THAT one for a long time too, but like it or not, given their
track record, they will not just sit idle and watch a perceived enemy obtain a nuke,
so it’s certainly not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when’.
May we live in interesting times… I just pray WW3 doesn’t begin and fuck up
my Christmas…I want winter, but not a nuclear winter.