Iran and the Bomb

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

If Iran develops a nuclear weapon will it use it?

yes
20
87%
no
3
13%
 
Total votes : 23

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:56 am

DavidS wrote:Before going so far as to consider the cost of war - has Pres. Obama, or whoever, analysed the consequences of *standing idly by*, *appeasement*, *demonstrating weakness*... insofar as the *less predictable/lucid* elements in regimes such as Iran's might be led to *mistaken* conclusions as to the West's determination to preserve its way of life, or life itself?...

I have a fairly low opinion of politicians in general. I'm not sure they can assess the probable consequences of a given course of action without tripping over old campaign speeches and giving themselves mental breakdowns.

My personal assessment of the *less predictable/lucid* elements (I like that *less predictable/lucid* designator. May I use it?) in various current regimes leads me right back to Trinitite production scenarios. I think the *less lucid* will persist until they're irradiated or otherwise neutralized.
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby DavidS » Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:18 am

1. Selma, I couldn't agree with you more about politicians.
2. "*less predictable/lucid* designator" - be my guest; anything to give all and sundry a true understanding of what these nutters are about.
3. As I have said many a time, we, who consider ourselves the *sane* faction, must take in and act on the threat posed to the human race.
Tel grain, tel pain.
DavidS
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Originally London, now near Tel-Aviv

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby dai bread » Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:11 pm

"I believe President Bush' intentions were honourable: To drive al-Queda and the Taleban out of power and allow a democratically-elected government to fill the void."

The theory is wonderful. Unfortunately, the practice wasn't, and, IMO, can't be, for the reasons I've posted before.
We have no money; we must use our brains. -Ernest Rutherford.
dai bread
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Haggis@wk » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:00 am

I've come to the sad conclusion that Iran’s going to get the bomb, I don't believe there’s anything the UN can do to stop them, and unless Israel takes action we’ll have to get used to the idea of an Islamic fundamentalist state with civilization-ending weapons. What could go wrong?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby jamiebk » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:34 am

It certainly buys thema seat at the table...their main goal. Scary indeed :shock:
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Haggis@wk » Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:21 pm

I have a high degree of confidence that Israel and Netanyahu will take some action against Iran however I'm not so confident that action will be sufficient.

It will also lead to some significant reprisals all across the Middle East and is probably going to result in U.S. casualties.

trivia, Netanyahu's brother led the successful raid on Entebbe, 07/04/76 and was the only Israeli casualty
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:55 pm

It's been an open question for several years which would come to pass first: nuclear Pakistan going Islamist, or Islamist Iran going nuclear.
To judge from this Wall Street Journal report, Pakistan has taken a slight lead in these stakes.

In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Taliban advances pose "an existential threat" to Pakistan and urged Pakistanis world-wide to oppose a government policy yielding to them.

Pakistanis "need to speak out forcefully against a policy that is ceding more and more territory to the insurgents," Mrs. Clinton said in testimony before a House committee. She pointed to "the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by the continuing [Taliban] advances, now within hours of Islamabad."


I can't see that Pakistanis speaking out forcefully is going to make much difference at this point. Unless you think the U.S. public has the appetite for a major military intervention in Pakistan (no, me neither), I'd say the place is going belly up, or at best is headed for a partition. I hope India has some contingency plans for the forthcoming floods of refugees — tens of millions, very likely.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby piqaboo » Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:00 pm

India is probably building a main thoroughfare to funnel them straight thru to Bangladesh.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed May 06, 2009 10:16 am

The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama may counter demands from Israel to confront Iran over their nuclear program by confronting Israel over theirs. Eli Lake has the exclusive on the Obama administration’s strategy to force Israel under the umbrella of the non-proliferation treaty, apparently as a condition to getting Iran to surrender their nukes. The effort will include India and Pakistan, and comes from a 2006 Saudi peace plan that would leave Israel at the mercy of the armies surrounding the state:

President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

Gottemoeller has a track record of demanding Israeli disarmament:

However, Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, “Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security.”
“Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israel’s nuclear status, the United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,” she wrote.

The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.

I have to suspect that Ms. Gottemoeller’s position is the administration’s as well and will set the stage for some unpleasantness during the 18 May meeting. The Obama administration appointed Gottemoeller, fully cognizant of her thinking on this issue. One has to assume that her appointment to the senior position at State constitutes an endorsement of those positions. It wouldn’t be the most radical thinking about Israel from this administration; Samantha Powers, who works between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, once called for a Western occupation of Israel and forced disarmament of their entire army.
You’d think that Obama would encourage the only democracy, other than Turkey, in the region. Rather than trying to disarm our friends we should try to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Shapley » Wed May 06, 2009 11:12 am

Haggis@wk wrote:You’d think that Obama would encourage the only democracy, other than Turkey, in the region. Rather than trying to disarm our friends we should try to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.


I don't think Mr. Obama cares much for the distinction between demcracy and non-democracy.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Schmeelkie » Wed May 06, 2009 11:55 am

You think Israel would actually disarm? come on! They know half the Islamic world wants them off the map - why encourage it. Disarm Israel, and be prepared to evacuate all non-muslims from the nation. It'd be like calling the bully over - please come beat me up. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

IMHO, negotiating with Iran (or North Korea for that matter) won't work either because they have no motivation to stop doing what they're doing. Logic isn't going to work with that government. Much as I'd hate to see the effect of it on the world's opinion of the US and Obama, part of me would love to watch Israel whack Iran.
"Up plus down equals flat" Pumpkin, 3 yrs, 10 mo, July '07
Schmeelkie
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby BigJon@Work » Wed May 06, 2009 12:15 pm

Schmeelkie wrote: Disarm Israel, and be prepared to evacuate all non-muslims from the nation.

Give 'em North Dakota.
"I am a 12 foot lizard." GCR Jan 31, 2006
BigJon@Work
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:01 am
Location: work. Duh!

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed May 06, 2009 12:31 pm

Schmeelkie wrote:You think Israel would actually disarm? come on! They know half the Islamic world wants them off the map - why encourage it. Disarm Israel, and be prepared to evacuate all non-muslims from the nation. It'd be like calling the bully over - please come beat me up. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

IMHO, negotiating with Iran (or North Korea for that matter) won't work either because they have no motivation to stop doing what they're doing. Logic isn't going to work with that government. Much as I'd hate to see the effect of it on the world's opinion of the US and Obama, part of me would love to watch Israel whack Iran.


I agree that Israel is not going to give up it's nukes, but defiance will come at a huge cost. The U.S. gives Israel a lot of money. In 2008, President Bush signed a memo giving Israel $30BIL over the next seven years. Obama can stop that with another memo.

I’m not sure about Clinton but several of the “smart power” State Department senior people are demonstrably anti-Israel. I fear Israel is due for some rough times in the upcoming years.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Schmeelkie » Thu May 07, 2009 8:57 am

I'll have to keep my fingers crossed that Obama doesn't do that. For many reasons, I tend to prefer the Democratic candidates for president, but foreign policy is always the nagging doubt which leads me to not make up my mind until the last minute most years.

I want to have sympathy for the Palestinians - pushed off land they thought would be theirs and not always treated well by Israel, but their reaction 99% of the time is violence... it hasn't worked for the last 50 years, Israel isn't budging and the Western world either is indecisive about it or is still backing Israel, so they're not getting any help there. (Got a similar situation in Ireland where some people just don't want to give up on force/terrorism to get their goals rather than peaceful negotiation).

Back to Iran - my nagging doubt there about the US or Israel taking action is that it's not a democratic nation, thus, it could be that the majority of the people there don't agree with their government, but are too scared/complacent to do anything about it. I don't want to attack the people, just their dumb-a#@ leaders. Same thing in N. Korea.

There's a set of sci fi short stories (author slipping my mind) where people are visiting other worlds and want to have everyone have democratic governments, but the group has a saying along the lines of "You can't force people into democracy". Very true I believe. The most successful democracies, I'd say, are the ones where the people decided that was what their government should be, not what someone else decided it should be. Democracy is great - but we can't really force it on people....
"Up plus down equals flat" Pumpkin, 3 yrs, 10 mo, July '07
Schmeelkie
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby jamiebk » Thu May 07, 2009 9:06 am

Schmeelkie wrote:There's a set of sci fi short stories (author slipping my mind) where people are visiting other worlds and want to have everyone have democratic governments, but the group has a saying along the lines of "You can't force people into democracy".


In Star Trek, it was called "the Prime Directive" or "General Order 1"...never interfere with the laws or society of another species/civilization....even to save one's own life. Violation considered a felony offense
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Shapley » Thu May 07, 2009 9:18 am

jamiebk wrote:In Star Trek, it was called "the Prime Directive" or "General Order 1"...never interfere with the laws or society of another species/civilization....even to save one's own life. Violation considered a felony offense


And yet they violated it routinely...
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby jamiebk » Thu May 07, 2009 9:24 am

Shapley wrote:
jamiebk wrote:In Star Trek, it was called "the Prime Directive" or "General Order 1"...never interfere with the laws or society of another species/civilization....even to save one's own life. Violation considered a felony offense


And yet they violated it routinely...


Not so....when it was, it was under the direst of circumstances and even then, investigations and often consequences were invoked. But then, unfortunately, this is sci fi and not the real world where we think we have the right to vaccinate eveyone with the Democracy gene.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Shapley » Thu May 07, 2009 9:45 am

jamiebk wrote:Not so....when it was, it was under the direst of circumstances and even then, investigations and often consequences were invoked. But then, unfortunately, this is sci fi and not the real world where we think we have the right to vaccinate eveyone with the Democracy gene.


I admit I haven't seen every episode, but I don't recall seeing Captain Kirk under investigation or suffering consequences for violating the directive. I know they talked about the directive a lot, and Kirk sometimes sought legal opinions from crew members before he took action that might violate that directive, but I seem to recall only one episode in which Kirk was put on defensive before a tirbunal for his actions.

Fortunately for them, Mr. Obama was not in charge of the Federation, or Mr. Spock could have found himself up on charges for offering his opinions...
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby Haggis@wk » Thu May 07, 2009 4:41 pm

Schmeelkie wrote: "You can't force people into democracy". Very true I believe. The most successful democracies, I'd say, are the ones where the people decided that was what their government should be, not what someone else decided it should be. Democracy is great - but we can't really force it on people....


Of course you can, we've forced democracy on Germany, Japan (Gen. McArthur personally wrote the constitution), Italy, and more recently, Iraq.

The leaders of Iran are more frightening that most dictators, they are already annihilationists and pair that with nuclear weapons is very frightening
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Iran and the Bomb

Postby analog » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:43 pm

a picture of their enrichment site...

Our power reactors use 2% to 6% enriched fuel.
You use the same equipment to push it up to >90% for weapons. The process gets real slow at high enrichment.
So only they know what's up.

http://www.imagingnotes.com/go/newsletter.php?mp_id=184#art1
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron