Nuclear criticism

[Fred56]

One of the most ridiculous arguments I keep hearing about Iran's "supposed" (but probably very likely) pursuit of nuclear weapons technology, is that Ahmedinejad has vowed to drop the very first one they build on Tel-Aviv, or words to that effect.

 

But this would be both a very improbable and very irrational act on Iran's behalf. Not only because Ahmed does not actually have his finger on any button(s), but because it is fairly unlikely that the mullahs are prepared, despite all their thundering, to invite annihilation of their country from the inevitable Israeli/US retaliation.

 

If it is such a dangerous proposition to allow some country, branded part of an axis of evil no less, access to NWT, why wasn't Nth Korea prevented from developing the bomb, and why hasn't Kim Jong-il dropped one of them on his Southern enemy?

[Sisyphus]

I think the idea is Ahm's rhetoric is reminiscent of Islamic terrorists', so he might just not care about retribution or even invite it intentionally as part of some crazy martyrdom scheme. Or, instead of "dropping" the bomb, they would use it to supply third-party terrorists, who would then smuggle it in or something.

 

For the record, I don't think he is as crazy as he pretends to be (he needs the support of those who are, though), and I don't think they're close to developing a weapon, and I don't think Iran would use a weapon if it had one (it's far too valuable as a deterrent against invasion). But that is the rationale.

[Blade]

Owning nuclear weapons is a way to protect one self from territorial invasions.

 

It's a ticket to freedom so to speak.

[ParanoiA]

But this would be both a very improbable and very irrational act on Iran's behalf.

 

That part of the world is not rational. There is nothing rational about carrying about hatred and wars and never ending violence because of religion and ancient feuds. They're still drawing lines, fighting, suicide bombing, and marketing terror - extremely archaic ideas of humanity, ridiculous intensity in religion and service.

 

Obvious generalizing, but they do not share our dynamics in rationality.

[John Cuthber]

My guess is he's lying.

As long as he keeps threatening to get hold of a bomb he gets publicity and some sort of kudos from the rich west; we might be prepared to pay him not to get one.

Provided that he doesn't get one he doesn't need to worry about keeping his promise to nuke Tel Aviv, but, while he keeps talking about it he gets kudos at home (at least from some camps) for being a strong leader.

 

I think it might be amusing to consider giving him a bomb- we have lots and we are not using them for anything.

And then reminding him that, if he uses it, he will get destroyed utterly.

 

What would this do to his credibility, particularly with his neighbours who would get the fallout?

[Pangloss]

On a more positive note, the UN and current US administration appear to be making progress with North Korea. A new treaty was announced last week in which they promised to give up all nuclear development. Unfortunately it did not address existing weapons, but it seemed to me like a step in the right direction.

[Fred56]

That part of the world is not rational. There is nothing rational about carrying about hatred and wars and never ending violence because of religion and ancient feuds.

 

So "our" part of the world, the one that invades countries and spends gazillions on weapons and navies and fleets of bombers, and lets things like Darfur keep on keeping on and does bugger-all about a lot of "bad" things (Burma, Zimbabwe, AIDS) in general is, thank God, free from all that stuff?

[Saryctos]

So "our" part of the world, the one that invades countries and spends gazillions on weapons and navies and fleets of bombers, and lets things like Darfur keep on keeping on and does bugger-all about a lot of "bad" things (Burma, Zimbabwe, AIDS) in general is, thank God, free from all that stuff?

 

yes.

[Fred56]

Well, I'm glad we cleared that one up.

[ParanoiA]

So "our" part of the world, the one that invades countries and spends gazillions on weapons and navies and fleets of bombers, and lets things like Darfur keep on keeping on and does bugger-all about a lot of "bad" things (Burma, Zimbabwe, AIDS) in general is, thank God, free from all that stuff?

 

Yes. But refrain from the value judgment on the face of that logic. We've done worse than you're outlining as well. I really don't think any country has a monopoly on innocence, nor is free from blood or shame. But our cultures clash on levels so fundamental, that rationale between us is limited and precarious. I don't like my country interfacing with the middle east really on any level.

[iNow]

I don't like my country interfacing with the middle east really on any level.

One of our plants in Israel and one of my peers was in town last week for a training event, and she and I spent a lot of time together, both during training and after work getting to know one another. We'd never met prior, only exchanged one or two emails in a two year time period. She is an amazing women, born in Israel, and working there now. My life is better knowing her, our company is better having her, and she is part of the middle east.

 

I used to supervise a woman who, instead of being Israeli, was Palestinian. She was the most kind and considerate person I've ever met. She was bright, patient, lovely, and gifted. She went to John's Hopkins to study the most effective way to deliver medicine to the poor children and families which cannot afford it, and has since become a supervisor at the American Cancer Society where I hired her. She and her family are all Palestinian, still living there.

 

I understand the frustration you feel toward the region, but please try to catch yourself before suggesting they are separate from the rest of us and should be somehow cutoff. So many years of hatred consistently reinforced, it is not blanket sentiments that will allow that to pass behind us.

 

Look into the eyes of an individual, not at the label with which they've been painted.

 

That wasn't so much at you, ParanoiA, but anyone reading. We are not so different, and we are all ultimately in this life together.

 

Thanks for the audience. I don't mean to appear on a high horse, just to keep the awareness of the individual living in these locales within our view.

[ParanoiA]

Fair enough, iNow. "On any level" was too broad of a modifier. I'm speaking about nation-to-nation business and government. I would never advocate isolation like that from any country's people.

[Fred56]

How well do you think any of us (here in the "civilised" world) understands a country like Iran?

You are aware that the Pres. actually has little power? That his status and position are largely dependent on both popular support and support from religious leaders? That he is essentially trying to score brownie points when he says some of the things he says? That his statements, and the responses from those Western governments who supply his fire with more fuel, are just a war of words because he has no real power?

[ParanoiA]

If someone has to vocalize fantasies of annihilition of other countries to score brownie points with their people then why on earth do you want to do business with them? Would you personally trust someone who regularly advocated the murder of a family down the street? I'm not sure I trust Iran with fire at this point.

 

Hopefully we're secretly investing in defensive schemes because the nuclear age is about to get crazy, I'm afraid.

[Donnie Darko]

Nuclear war is VERY scary. And it didn't end in 1991 with the Cold War, the fear is greater than ever.

[Fred56]

On that note (and with apologies to members of the GWB Admiration Society):

 

George Bush has endorsed "nookyuller" energy with his oft-used "this is how it's gonna be" overtones at the APEC conference. The thing that he has to get around here (except that he might get around it by ignoring it -he does seem to believe that ignorance is a valid option), is that the world knows "nookyuller" energy produces both dangerous waste and dangerous by-products (proliferation-wise). Quite how the world is going to sort this puppy out that he is trying to sell it is unkyuller... sorry, unclear, to me.

[Pangloss]

I accept your apology on behalf of the GWBAS! (grin)

 

I like a good comedic jab as much as anybody, but do people just not remember that Jimmy Carter used to call it "nookyuller" too? And he studied Nookyuller Engineering at Georgia Tech, and ended up getting a degree in physics!