1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran? / Latest Posts

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Nuclearcow — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:23:06 GMT

I suppose the U.S.'s "Miracle on Ice" was kind of like that. It was a way of showing the Soviet Union was mortal.

Still... stupid though. :P But people get inspired over all types of things.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Konrad von Richtmark — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:57:46 GMT

Remember Jesse Owens...

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Nuclearcow — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:23:22 GMT

Would Iranians take it personally if an Israeli swimmer beat the Iranian swimmer? As though it meant Israel was superior or some garbage? What a dummy. :P

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:32:05 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (7/15/2008)[/b][hr]Scip, Do you spend all your free time (when not on 1bc) on Youtube? :D[/quote]

Maybe not all, but a good chunk. Cheaper than cable and more fun too!

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:18:39 GMT

Ohhh! They were in Croatia! :)

[quote]

What's kind of distressing is that I can't find too many articles on this. [/quote]

Why is that distressing, jerm? It's only one individual, not public policy of the IRI. The other guy qualified, but it doesn't say if he had to race against an Israeli.

To be honest, this person who didn't compete is pretty dumb, it's not like they were even swimming in the same lane or anything.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

jerm — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:53:14 GMT

Thought this was apropos of the subject:

[url=http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=63330&sectionid=3510211]Iranian swimmer shuns Israeli rival[/url]

[quote]Despite the fact that he had a chance to get an Olympic berth for his country, the 19-year-old Iranian national gave up the competition as he was grouped with an Israeli swimmer on Thursday evening.[/quote]

What's kind of distressing is that I can't find too many articles on this.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Nuclearcow — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:38:10 GMT

Scip, Do you spend all your free time (when not on 1bc) on Youtube? :D

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:22:36 GMT

Interesting video on the YouTube about the Davy Crocket Nuke

[youtube]khyZI3RK2lE[/youtube]

Risky even for the user: sounds ideal for a suicide bomber . . .

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:51:35 GMT

Weren't we talking about suitcase nukes in this thread? Who needs a suitcase nuke when you can get a "mini-nuke," e.g., something along the lines of the warhead from a retired [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29]Davy Crockett M-388 tactical nuclear recoilless rifle[/url]?

[quote]The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a selectable yield of 10 or 20 tons (very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead) up to 0.5 kiloton. The complete round weighed 76 lb (34.5 kg). It was 31 in. (78.7 cm) long with a diameter of 11 in. (28 cm) at its widest point; a subcaliber piston at the back of the shell was actually inserted into the launcher's barrel for firing. ^[1][/quote]

True, not exactly suitcase sized; but 79cm x 28cm and 23kg is certainly small enough to be toted around on a workman's hand truck or mail carrier's cart, let alone in the trunk of a car, parked in a car-park in the middle of some other high-pop density area (University, city center, amusement park, etc.). A reasonably strong person could carry it under one arm . . .

[quote] The Davy Crockett could be launched from either of two launchers: the 4-inch (102 mm) M28, with a range of about 1.25 mi (2 km), or the 6-in (155 mm) M29, with a range of 2.5 mi (4 km). Both weapons used the same projectile, and could be mounted on a tripod launcher or carried by truck or armored personnel carrier. They were operated by a three-man crew. ^[2][/quote]

Obviously a launcher is pretty irrelvant for any terrorist intentions, but if it was so easy to produce, so stable, and so readily attached to a rifle, why are these things not all over the place!?

ADDIT: on second thought, maybe the launcher would actually be really useful for a terrorist attack, see below . . .

[quote]Production of the Davy Crockett began in 1956, with a total of 2,100 being made. The weapon was deployed with U.S. Army forces from 1961 to 1971.[/quote]

So this is 40+ year old technology, which was sufficiently reliable and efficient to produce that the U.S. had 2100 of them made, and they were actually deployed with European defense elements until 1971. Most likely the only reason they were un-deployed is because something better was developed!

So again my question: why does Iran NOT have these? Why does Al Qaeda or Hamas, NOT have these sorts of things? Could it be because they have not yet developed the nuclear infrastructure to be able to produce such things, and that the black market from Russia, Pakistan, RNK, China, etc., is just too problematic/expensive?

[quote]Both recoilless guns proved to have poor accuracy in testing, so the shell's greatest effect would have been its extreme radiation hazard. Even at a low yield setting, the M388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 meters). ^[3][/quote]

600 rem at 400m, so probably still 10 or 20 rem at 700m (~half-mile). Basically [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_sickness#Table_of_exposure_levels_and_symptoms]anything above 100 rem and you are going to get very sick[/url] and with increasing levels of fatalities (estimated at 10% at 100 to 200 rem; est at 60% fatality at 400-600rem). Moreover, even if you only get exposed to 50 or 60 rem, and don't die, you will NOT be a happy camper, may never be able to reproduce, and may well die of cancer much earlier than otherwise.

I would say that: picking the right spot, one of these babies could be used to cause considerable havoc by a malicious terrorist element. To be objective: it is true that many of the most high-pop-density contexts (e.g., a Manhattan type situation, or a basement car-park of a skyscraper, or a multi-level parking garage of a shopping mall, etc.) are also going to have structural features (namely buildings and floors made of concrete and steel) that will severely limit the effects of both the blast and the radiation exposure . . .

But set off one of these babies inside a stadium with a rock concert, football game, fireworks display, etc., and it seems to me [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Stadium]you could EASILY kill 50 to 60,000 people[/url], depending on the popularity of the spectacle in question.

Michigan Stadium e.g., holds ~108,000 to 111,000 people (111 with bands, teams, media, etc.).

Lesse, a football field is maybe 150 total length (including the endzones, etc.) add maybe 100 meters on each end for the seats . . . we're talkin' a concentrated target that is 350 to 450m diameter with up to 111,000 innocent souls just trying to have a good time inside. Detonate a device comparable to the W54 warhead from a Davy Crockett inside the perimeter of the open interior part of "The Big House" and my guess is you'd kill at least half the spectators, maybe most of them.

. . . . Yeah, preventing THAT would not be worth waterboarding some terrorist scumbag . . .

Now, what was that about "everyone should be able to have their very own nuclear program?"

ADDIT: on second thought, the launcher could be extremely useful. Since 9/11 "security" in places like stadiums has likely gotten a bit more rigorous. But if you can put one of these on a launcher why bother trying to smuggle past stadium security? Get a flat-bed truck and a launcher similar to the old M-29 (couldn't be too hard for a nation like Iran to put together), and make a fresh new Davy Crockett-knockoff device. If you had the infrastucture putting it together might take, what? Six months?

Now smuggle it through Mexico into the U.S. . . . hardly a challenge whatsoever. Now get it to where your truck is parked, and mount the M-29 on the truck bed, and create a pullover "cowl" to cover the launcher and crew. Pick a day some 3 to 4 months hence when a big event will be held in some place like "The Big House" (see above), and start figuring out the best fire-locations, and firing-solutions. Mount your M-29 with the pre-set firing-solutions (probably improving accuracy notably) in the bed of the truck. At the right moment (e.g., half-time celebration) drive your truck into position, pull back the cowl, launch your nuke, then detonate a conventional explosive device inside the truck, giving the fanatics their longed-for journey to meet the 92 virgins . . .

The more I think about it, the utter ease of pulling an attack like this is very, VERY chilling to consider . . .

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Nuclearcow — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:02:14 GMT

Iraqi official says Israel using Iraqi airspace and bases to prepare for strike against Iran.

US and Israel: "Nuh uh!"

[url]http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/11/Report_Israeli_planes_fly_drills_in_Iraq/UPI-68211215793248/[/url]

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:10:59 GMT

[quote]What did the Yanks and the Russkies do to stop the Brits, French and Chinese from getting a global delivery capability behind their nukes?[/quote]

My understanding is the Yanks HELPED the Brits and French, and I would not be surprised if the Russkies helped the Chinese to get their first programs.

You are correct in the sense that the Russians helped the Pakistanis, and likely the Indians as well, and the Americans likely helped the Israelis.

But global delivery systems are a different story.

Let me rephrase: if PR and strategic expediency for some reason obviates the Western motive to smack Iran's burgeoning efforts, and Russia's efforts to help Iran get nukes succeeds, you and I both know that the consequence will be U.S. will then "help" Saudi, and Israel (Turkey?) to get the means to nullify that capacity.

We are led back to my balance of power argument: the balance of power remains Western Powers vs. Post-Commie Powers and her allies.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Konrad von Richtmark — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:56:55 GMT

Really now? What did the Yanks and the Russkies do to stop the Brits, French and Chinese from getting a global delivery capability behind their nukes?

How many countries have military submarines? How many countries have space programs? From having either of those, the step needed to have a global delivery system would not be that big. Heck, one nuclear submarine on the Atlantic coast and one on the Pacific coast would be enough to hit most US targets of value. One in the Arctic sea and one in the Gulf of Finland would be enough to hit most Russian targets of value.

History has shown so far that while the nuclear ambitions of countries get widely condemned while they are underway, the world is very quick to accept the nukes as a fact once they have been finished. Even to the point of appeasing their owners as long as they show that they can be reasoned with. If I was the Caliph, I would get a badass nuclear arsenal in no time :D

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:47:20 GMT

You and I both know it is irrelevant. The Yanks and Russkies would never let anyone get anything like a global delivery system that would actually upset the balance of power.

I'm not justifying the power balance, just pointing it out. Indeed, I'd argue that it remains a highly unjust balance; until such time as Russia is as democratic and beneficient as Germany or Japan, and places like Syria and Iran have no post-commie umbrella to get shade under, the balance remains insufficiently just for humanity.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Konrad von Richtmark — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:53:41 GMT

So, Scipio, the only reason you can give for why everyone else should be content to live or die on the whim and pleasure of the Kremlin and the White House is that there's not a damn thing they can do about it?

I find your answer not only to be bullying, but quite absurd too. It is true that few countries could afford to build and maintain nuclear arsenals the size of the US and Russia, but you don't need to do that to be able to pose a nuclear deterrent.

As long as you have a global delivery system, how many nukes would you need? 100? Would 10 be enough? Would *you* be willing to sacrifice the 10 biggest US cities to be able to wreak even more nuclear destruction on my country during any hypothetical circumstances? Would you even be willing to sacrifice a single one? NYC is quite big and significant, only in itself more populous than many countries.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

cleopatra143 — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:54:51 GMT

Personally, there are some days where I wish I could just throw a sheet over my head. Those girls have got the right ideas! No more catcalls either. :D

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

jerm — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:22:57 GMT

We can see her nose! Chop it off!

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:10:02 GMT

Is that a manikin next to Aminadijadinakywhacky?

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Nuclearcow — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:53:45 GMT

Booo! BOOO! Har har har! Okay, funny. :D

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Tosk — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:39:49 GMT

Well I don't care what you guys say I think Iran's first lady is a hottie!!

[img]http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/_np/4980/5884980.jpg[/img]

:w00t::w00t: :Whistling:

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:31:28 GMT

The idea of a "sovereign nation" as it is conceived in the fundamental organization of the U.N. is an obsolete and unhelpful idea. "Nations" need to be following suit with the EU: reduction of national boundaries and increased integration between former nations.

Moreover, the conceptual framework of the U.N. is oxymoronic. The putative primary purpose of the organization is to promote common welfare of humanity, but the secondary (and implicit?) structural basis for doing this is to entrench sovereign boundaries through the idea that "all nations have equal rights to sovereignty?" I'm not even aware of this being one of the explicit principles in the U.N. because if it were, it would promote secessions. Imagine Renaissance Italy . . . we do not need to be going back in that direction.

Moreover, even if such a concept of "every one who wants to have sovereignty deserves to have it" actually IS part of U.N. principle, it is contradicted by repeated actions of that organization. Imposing sanctions, embargoes, or simply writing letters to sovereign entities to "tell them how angry we are with them" is a fundamental contradiction of the idea that they can do whatever they want as a sovereign!

I find it hard to imagine the negative consequences if all aspects of the U.N. except the international dialogue, and the forum for integrating humanitarian efforts were scrapped.

ADDIT: on the point of "To say to another nation that you can't have peaceful nuclear reactors, but when oil prices impact us, we freely talk about building more of our own... that is also a double standard;' my understanding is that the specific type of nuclear facilities which the Iranians are striving to put into operation are NOT useful for nuclear power. They are ONLY useful for producing material for nuclear explosive devices. As such, any reference to such a double standard is a straw man comment/argument that can only serve to distract attention from the real issue: Iran is striving to build nuclear facilities that are ONLY suited to produce nuclear weapons. Many international, and national entities (the EU, NATO, the UN, and several nations including the U.S., but excepting China, Russia, RNK, Pakistan, and Venezeula to name a few rogues) have stated explicitly and repeatedly that the do not approve, and vigorously insist that Iran discontinue these efforts to create such nuclear facilities. In Civ4 terms: "the world" thinks the current Iranian leadership is a "villain."

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Nuclearcow — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:36:43 GMT

Hey, I want in on this debate. Wait... what exactly are you guys debating? :P

In the eyes of the world, or the U.N. and each nation being sovereign, and all nations being equal to each other, in importance, sovereignty, authority, etc. This obviously is not the case in regards to power of wealth, industry, military and many other things, but in theory, each nation is just as sovereign and important as the next. Iran and many countries that complain of US arrogance want the right to be equal as us on everything. I do think it is a double standard to not allow others to get nuclear weapons, but have OODLES ourselves and not be very interested in reducing what we have. To say to another nation that you can't have peaceful nuclear reactors, but when oil prices impact us, we freely talk about building more of our own... that is also a double standard. But, I know I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, so what do we do?

In my opinion, things will probably continue down this path until nations that have them already rumble with others that have them already and they use them on each other. Whoever that is. Only then will the world be interested in dismantling the existing ones as well. For many, it will be too late. Thats how I think things will go.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:59:03 GMT

My understanding of what Iran is striving for is not to produce fissile material that would be suitable for dirty bombs, or so-called "suitcase nukes." If that is all they want, I imagine that it would be far more efficient to simply purchase it on the black market. Pakistan, Russia, China or RNK are probably readily available sources of both the material, and the "help desk" assistance to get a few of these weapons up and running.

Honestly, I've become skeptical that it is/would be "relatively easy" to create and smuggle such a weapon into a U.S. port, but that may just be ignorance. It would be interesting to read some actual empirical factual information on this instead of just arm-waving. I agree that these seem on the surface of it to be real and serious threats worth considering, but if that is true, why have no such strikes been carried out in the last 6.875 years when Al Qaeda escalated the Islamofascist War on the West, and the U.S. went into semi-offensive mode? Since 2001, probably hundreds of thousands of Muslims have died at the hand of Coalition (meaning Western forces). The situation in Iraq has gone from victory, to quagmire, to better, to worse, to seemingly (in the minds of most Western media) hopeless, to now "unimportant" by virtue of the fact that there is not much "bad news" to be told. In short, "We are winning," and the Islamofascists are "losing." You'd think that during all that time, if attacks like those you outline were real prospects that Iran or whomever would have carried it out, woudn't you? That makes me skeptical that any claims that such a threat is a major one might just be speculative if not alarmist in nature.

I'm also skeptical that there are so many "sleeper" Islamofascist agents waiting to be activated, but a bit less skeptical. The fact is, Islamofascism remains a highly divisive, diffuse, uncentralized, panoply of small groups and even independent individuals. Yes, there may be a couple thousand prospective "sleepers" in the U.S., but without any coherent central command and control what exactly are they going to do? If there is any nation or other entity with some promise it would seem to be Iran, and I agree that, it would seem to be a highly motivated goal for the current leadership in Iran to carry out such a strike on the U.S. If it was 2003 or even 2005 maybe I'd go along with the concerns you express with less skepticism, but it is nearly 7 years since the major hostilities of the Islamofascist War began and we've seen ZERO activity on the part of them in the U.S. It would be intersting to know how many attacks or planned attacks have been thwarted.

My analogy is important because it points out the basic truth: Iran can only argue for the legitimacy and expediency of a nuclear program by virtue of positioning itself as an adversary of the U.S. and her allies, unlike say Canada, Italy or Costa Rica, which are friendly and unconfrontational with the U.S. I'm sure many nations have a grievance or 30 with the U.S. and that they pursue resolution of those conflicts through a variety of public relations, legal, and diplomatic means, but they do not define themselves in terms of an inevitable clash of diametrically opposed moral opposites with the clear explication of inevitable violence.

In short, resistance is futile; building some piddly nuclear bombs to sit on top of some piddly short range missiles is both silly and futile. Iran does not have the wherewithal to win the long-term struggle against globalization. China and Russia have given up on playing the role of "anti-Capitalist" anti-American foil, what sense is there in some dinky, backwards nation like Iran or Venezuela or RNK acting as the bull dog for these lost causes? To be sure, the Russians and the Chinese are not major inner-circle allies, but they have also loosened up on their rivalrousness. They realized they couldn't beat "us" (or more precisely the consumer and civic forces of globalization) so they have by-degrees "joined us." Iran, Venezeula, RNK, and other hold-out numb-skull states need to wake up and smell the coffee: you cannot beat us, might as well 'join us,' like just about everyone else.

If we're gonna get on with establishing the United Federation of Planets, we need to start making progress toward that an Earth with ruled by one-common government and we only have a couple centuries to get on track with the Roddenberry schedule.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

jerm — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:20:25 GMT

Dirty bombs are probably just as difficult to smuggle in, if not more so. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb#Constructing_and_obtaining_material_for_a_dirty_bomb]Wiki[/url]:

[quote]An example of a worst case scenario is a terror organization possessing a source of very highly radioactive material, e.g. a strontium-90 thermal generator, with the ability to create an incident comparable to the Chernobyl accident. Although the detonation of a dirty bomb using such a source might seem terrifying, it would be hard to assemble the bomb and transport it without severe radiation damage and possible death of the perpetrators involved. Shielding the source effectively would make it almost impossible to transport and a lot less effective if detonated.[/quote]

Iran could spend the money on purchasing the material on the black market if they really wanted to hit America with a dirty bomb. They'd save a lot of money and have a lower risk of getting caught.

[quote]the desire for nukes is there to protect their assets at home and perhaps enhance their regional hegemony.[/quote]

I suspect this is very much the case... especially the latter half.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:27:20 GMT

Ok, that's fine, but let that not distract from my main point pertaining to the islamist/jihadist agents within the country. Maybe it won't be miniature nuclear weapons, but maybe it WILL be dirty bombs that rely on materials derived FROM nuclear materials. While not as...shall we say... explosive as nuclear weapons, they can still do a lot of damage. And even if Iran may not be able to get a "suitcase nuke" into the country, the desire for nukes is there to protect their assets at home and perhaps enhance their regional hegemony. See, there is something called the great Sunni/Shia divide, and realistically speaking, in the Middle East, Israel should be the least of Iran's concern. Israel has no inherent animosity towards Iran, but Iran and the Saudis, for example and other Sunnis in the area haven't always been the best of friends.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

jerm — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:33:34 GMT

It should be noted that making a suitcase nuke ain't particularly easy. While the U.S. and Russia have produced nukes as small as a small refrigerator, none have been produced that could actually fit into a normal looking suitcase that somebody could just carry around unnoticed (though they could be carried around). As of right now, the idea of a suitcase nuke is still (probably) science fiction. That's not to say such a thing couldn't be developed, but it's not a likely scenario right now, especially in a country like Iran who doesn't have the funding and infrastructure capabilities that a big nation like the U.S. or Russia do. That said, apparently Russia is missing 100 of these smaller nukes but that has nothing to do with Iran developing them.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:28:37 GMT

[quote]My point, which you do not seem to have fully grasped: NO ONE is EVER going to vie successfully for nuclear parity, let alone dominance against the top two (U.S. & Russia) nor even against the secondary four (U.K., China, France, India). Nor even against Pakistan with its ~60 short range warheads.[/quote]

Scipio, you are thinking about this all wrong my friend, and there are some important points you have not grasped here. Read on.

[quote]Would it be silly for Italy to try to get Nukes? Costa Rica? Canada? Brazil? Norway?[/quote]

Of course it would, but we're not talking about Italy, Costa Rica, Canada, etc. But that itself is a SILLY analogy. We are talking about Iran, in the Middle East. We are talking about a country that in 2002 watched as the President of the USA defined it as being a part of the "Axis of Evil" and then watched a year later as that very same President launched an invasion on one of the other members of the "Axis of Evil", Iraq, which, no doubt, was RIGHT NEXT DOOR!!!! You think they would be a little concerned, no?

To be sure, Iran could develop nukes but they would not be able to reach America. Surely they MIGHT be able to reach a strong American ally, say Israel for example, but Israel has the means to counter any such strike, so it would be foolish for Iran to consider such a thing, but, my friend, you are thinking about this in old world terms, if the only thing you are willing to consider is the implications of missle ballistics. Lets take a look at this through the prism of the new world.

Have you ever heard of the famed "Suitcase Nukes"?? Ok, and I am sure you realize that in America today, there are countless Hamas, Hizbolla and Al Qaeda sympathizers, supporters, and, no doubt, agents already. How did they get here? Oh, some may be the foolish American citizens who have lost there way, but countless others have surely crossed the border, or have been smuggled across illegally. Last I heard, for the Salvadorian MS13 gang, smuggling across such shady terrorist types is big business.

Knowing that, do you think for a second that Iran would hesitate to utilize such a bomb, in conjunction with her Hizbolla collaborators to smuggle in a nuclear weapon or two into the United States of America? Think of the implications of that for a second bro. We're not talking about long range ballistic missles here. Now we've got a [i]Bona Fide[/i] nuclear weapon in Los Angeles, or New York or Chicago or Houston, maybe two of the four, maybe more. We could launch an attack on Iran, and they could counter it by giving the go ahead for their agents to set their weapons off and take out some of the USA's biggest cities while they themselves go down in flames.

Still think it is silly for anyone else to try and get nuclear weapons? That is why the Illegal Immigration debate should not be framed in terms of the hard working 'Messicans, but rather all of the boogey men who want to destroy this country that are already here and no doubt more are on the way. Problem is, the Mexicans might make up a vast majority of the illegal immigrants crossing the border, and thus, they get all the attention. now THAT is silly. :)

Please, doc, the battleship analogy is irrelevent, becuase battleships cannot be snuk into a country like nuclear weapons can. Thus it is vastly important that we see to it Iran not get nukes, but please do not insult everyone's intelligence by comparing Iran to Norway and say it is silly for any other nation to try and get a nuclear arsenal on the level of USA or Russia. They need not have any such quantities to inflict some serious damage. Bush has always maintained that "We will not negotiate with terrorists." Well, what would happen if those terrorists were attempting to blackmail the US government because they had an undiscolosed amount of nuclear weapons in an undisclosed number of US cities?

[quote]In sum, there is a perfectly fine balance of power in the world today. It is silly to try to challenge this balance by building silly-arse piddly little short-range nuclear weapons, which really only amount to scare tactics & internal propaganda to maintain faith among the peeps in otherwise shaky social orders and to help a regime with a tenuous grip on power to stay in control.[/quote]

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong, for all the reasons I have said above. :P

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

jerm — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:33:01 GMT

[quote]Does Iran think they are bad guys? Do they think we are good guys?

Opinions are in the eye of the beholder. [/quote]

Yes indeed they are. By "good guys," I mean those who are on the side of freedom, democracy and liberalism and not oppression, totalitarianism and fundamentalism. Does that clarify things? No doubt Iran (at least those in power) thinks the opposite is true.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:36:44 GMT

[quote][b]Locus Coeruleus (7/1/2008)[/b][hr][quote]But don't other nations have the same right to use any means necessary to stop them? [/quote]

Well jerm, whether they have the right or not is not nearly as important as whether they have the means to do so!!!! We have already seen Israel take out nuclear installations of two nations, Iraq and Syria (allegedly). They had the means and they did it. Of course nations have the right to use any means necessary to stop them. That's not the point I was trying to make. I'm on board with this, we must not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, that is a very scary thought. But at the same time, I do not think it silly that Iran is trying to get weapons. Nor do I think they are merely paranoid in trying to do so. That is the point I was arguing against, and I do believe Mr. ...errrr. Dr. Africanus has clarified his position. ;)[/quote]

Would it be silly for Italy to try to get Nukes? Costa Rica? Canada? Brazil? Norway?

My point, which you do not seem to have fully grasped: NO ONE is EVER going to vie successfully for nuclear parity, let alone dominance against the top two (U.S. & Russia) nor even against the secondary four (U.K., China, France, India). Nor even against Pakistan with its ~60 short range warheads.

By virtue of getting in to the race about 40 years behind, as well as because of relative population and economic size, RNK cannot ever hope to amass a sufficient arsenal to actually represent a strategic deterrent (even to her neighbors) given the huge existing asymmetry vis a vis the existing Nuke Club members. Sure, RNK COULD amass a sufficient arsenal to vaporize RSK or parts of Japan, but at that point, RNK would be toast. With the cat of an unprovoked enemy first strike out of the bag, the allied powers would certainly not be so restrained in their use of their full military capabilities in ending the Korean War once and for all. The same thing applies to Iran: In a world where the dominant powers have thousands of extremely high-tech, long-range, cryptic, and high-quality nukes, it is SILLY to build a half dozen or couple score short-range nukes that are effectively only good as regional deterrence at best.

With the exception of China (and possibly India) the same is true by degrees of the existing 10 club members at each level. Pakistan cannot afford to try to ratchet up to secondary status, and France and U.K. cannot afford to try to ratchet up to primary status.

The social, political, and economic costs of maintaining the largest EFFECTIVE nuclear arsenals are prohibitive. (effective meaning it is either a fullfledged triad system with land, air, and sub-based components in sufficient quantities, and diversities of locations that it can pose a sufficient threat both as a First Strike and a Second Strike deterrent). In order to have the nuclear capacity of the U.S. or Russia, you need to have the social, population, economic, technological, professional resources commensurate with building and maintaining that level of arsenal.

In short, the global nuclear balance of power is in place, and no one is going to jostle by building one or two short-range warheads, because those sorts of weapons are essentially irrelevant to the primary nuclear players who are (i) too far away; (ii) too large in size, pop, and economy; (iii) orders of magnitude more heavily armed; and (iv) orders of magnitude more effectively armed, with "effective" here meaning more advanced weapons systems like multi-warheard delivery systems, cryptic launch systems (mobile launchers, constantly semi-deployed bombers, subs). This is why it is "silly," yes that is right SILLY, for anyone anywhere to be building any more nukes. The order is in place, more nukes are not going to change the order.

In the early 20th century there was an arms race in battleships, with U.S. and U.K. being top dogs, and Japan vying for a role of parity with them. Russia, Germany, France, etc., were in a "secondary" status. That was a silly arms race too, because Japan simply did not have the wherewithal to compete, as WWII showed.

None of us here are huge powerful powerlifter types. Would it be wise or "not-Silly" for any of us to go into Gold's Gym, Los Angelos and go up to the biggest guys in there and say "I'm movin' up in the world! You're goin' DOWN!" and then start a frantic workout regimen in efforts to catch up with the top dogs massiveness? That too would be silly.

Italy, Canada, Brazil, Norway, Costa Rica, have no real use for nukes. They get along with their neighbors, and the get along with the world police(men) (U.S. and Russia, followed by France, U.K., China, India), and they have nothing to fear from the semi-powerful "rogue" Nuke states (Pakistan, RNK, Israel). Lets say Nicaragua starts buddying up to China or Russia. Costa Rica can always come crying to the U.S. and her teammates (France, U.K., ~India) to apply pressure. Same thing is true if say Iceland got belligerent against Canada, or if Peru gets cheeky with Brazil, or Denmark gets uppity against Norway.

In sum, there is a perfectly fine balance of power in the world today. It is silly to try to challenge this balance by building silly-arse piddly little short-range nuclear weapons, which really only amount to scare tactics & internal propaganda to maintain faith among the peeps in otherwise shaky social orders and to help a regime with a tenuous grip on power to stay in control.

Can't we compete through CIVILIZED means such as: The Olympics, YouTube, Game Forum Sites, Penthouse "Girls of the World" editions, etc.!?!

I CHALLENGE Ahjimajdinadijadai! Your women must be really FUGLY if you insist on keeping them so covered up all the time! SHOW US! that you are a beautiful civilized people! Give us the Iranian issue of the Penthouse Girls of the World Annual Series and cut with the BS "Big Missile" flopping . . .

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Nuclearcow — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 03:28:01 GMT

Does Iran think they are bad guys? Do they think we are good guys?

Opinions are in the eye of the beholder. :P

Another article: [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/US/story?id=5281043&page=1]Pentagon Official Warns of Israeli Attack on Iran[/url]

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

jerm — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:57:58 GMT

Ah well, I misunderstood your point. You said they have the "right" to build them. Each nation has the "right" to govern however they want. That does not mean there won't be consequences for governing in ways which threaten other nations... especially more powerful ones. We are lucky to live in a world where the powerful are (for the most part) the good guys. We just need to keep it that way :D.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:42:52 GMT

[quote]But don't other nations have the same right to use any means necessary to stop them? [/quote]

Well jerm, whether they have the right or not is not nearly as important as whether they have the means to do so!!!! We have already seen Israel take out nuclear installations of two nations, Iraq and Syria (allegedly). They had the means and they did it. Of course nations have the right to use any means necessary to stop them. That's not the point I was trying to make. I'm on board with this, we must not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, that is a very scary thought. But at the same time, I do not think it silly that Iran is trying to get weapons. Nor do I think they are merely paranoid in trying to do so. That is the point I was arguing against, and I do believe Mr. ...errrr. Dr. Africanus has clarified his position. ;)

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:58:36 GMT

[quote][b]Tosk (7/1/2008)[/b][hr][quote]So far there have been (IMS) about 200 nuclear detonation tests performed on Earth.[/quote]

How soon we forget. ;)

I listed over 2000 tests in the fugitive thread, nearly 37 a year remember?

Personally I think every country should have about a hundred ... or better yet each *person* should have at least one ... then, no matter where he is born, the next time a Harry Truman comes along everyone can play.
We would all feel far safer then would we not???
Well wouldn't we?

Now I lay me down to sleep ... please Oh Great poobah ... please send me a Gort.

[/sarcasm][/quote]

Ah yes, two THOUSAND tests; guess memory didn't serve. Probably one of those "the memory is just too terrible so the mind edits it to seem not so bad. . ."

What was that movie where they had the explosives planted inside the skulls, Escape from New York I think? Instead of NUKAUS, I think we should have those as the new and improved MAD instrument. But only elected officials get them. Their counterpart in a rival nation has the controller.

So the "Secretary of State" of Russia might push the button and blow up the SoS of the U.S., but then the Secretary of the Treasury of the U.S. could blow up the Russian SoS's brains. Maybe that would do away with both campaign finance fraud, electioneering rhetoric, AND nuklar proliferation!

Personally, I just don't like theocracies. Haven't thought it through totally, but I'd be okay if it was Brazil, or even Zimbabwe trying to get nukes; its when religious fanatics want doomsday weapons that it worries me.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Tosk — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:29:48 GMT

[quote]So far there have been (IMS) about 200 nuclear detonation tests performed on Earth.[/quote]

How soon we forget. ;)

I listed over 2000 tests in the fugitive thread, nearly 37 a year remember?

Personally I think every country should have about a hundred ... or better yet each *person* should have at least one ... then, no matter where he is born, the next time a Harry Truman comes along everyone can play.
We would all feel far safer then would we not???
Well wouldn't we?

Now I lay me down to sleep ... please Oh Great poobah ... please send me a Gort.

[/sarcasm]

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

jerm — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:12:39 GMT

But don't other nations have the same right to use any means necessary to stop them?

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:41:57 GMT

That is all fine and good Scip, but you are forgetting that we have not yet made it past the point of the existance of sovereign nations. Until we do, these folks have a right to pursue such technologies to protect themselves from perceived hostile neighbours, do they not?

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:48:17 GMT

[quote][b]Konrad von Richtmark (7/1/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b]cleopatra143 (6/26/2008)[/b][hr]lol Liked that last bit...anyway, if I were Iran I would build them regardless. But that's just me. I always do what people tell me not to. :D[/quote]

Well, I would build them too, and upon having a decent arsenal plus long-range delivery capability, let the whole world know about it. I would not put up with a world order where others have nukes and we have them not, especially when the major nuclear powers have repeatedly refused to even nominally adopt No First Use policies. Especially when offensive nuke use seems to be a socially acceptable idea, even on this very forum.[/quote]

Okay let me play around with this a bit :D

Right now the Nuclear Club is: U.S.; Russia (? plus Ukraine??); U.K.; France; China; India; Pakistan; Israel; North Korea.

So far there have been (IMS) about 200 nuclear detonation tests performed on Earth. The only nation to ever use atomic or nuclear weapons in actual wafare: U.S.A.

Over the past ~55 years, much of world history has taken shape around the ever-present arms race of building and deploying ever-more destructive, accurate, and defensible nuclear weapons by the five primary nuclear players. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation]Nuclear proliferation[/url] has been a sideline to that Cold War history pattern, which if you look at the map in that wiki page, has actually taken a SUBSTANTIAL reversal. There are lots of blue countries on that map which HAD programs to develope nuclear weapons, but no longer do.

Now, in reality, most land-based and air-wing strategic nuclear weapons are more or less obsolete. The real threat that keeps Mutual Assured Destruction firmly in place are SLBMs launched from SSBMs. The U.K. doesn't even bother with nukes that are not sub-based, and France also has most of its punch packed in subs.

To summarize: the ONLY nations which can effectively use Nukes as a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine#SSBN_classes_.28in_service.29]strategic deterrent[/url] at the global level are U.S. and U.S.S.R, and to a lesser extent China, France, the U.K. This is simply because of missile range, and target capacity. Pakistan, and Israel's arsenals are effectively self-defense systems, effective only at fairly short range, and pretty much sitting ducks if any of the major powers were to take a dim view of them, their existence or their use. China is striving to be more of a global superpower, and enhancing her navy is part of this.

Strategic logic, and historical precedent indicate that: for these five major nuclear powers, deterrent and stalemate are the current orders of the day, and likely to remain so given globalization of economic and cultural processes.

To summarize: nations like Israel, Pakistan, RNK, or Iran simply CANNOT compete with the major five in the Club in terms of global nuclear stance. All they can effectively do is hold their short-range, and limited supply of nuclear weapons as either a (a) blatant/offensive threat to their neighbors or as a (b) implicit/defensive threat to their neighbors.

Given all of this, why would any more nations need to have any more nuclear weapons? Indeed, the best thing for all of us would seem to be that each of the major five players stick to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty]letter and spirit of the NPT[/url], and also discourage, obstruct, prevent, curtail the proliferation of any new or additional nukes in the hands of anyone else. They simply do not have much use, for the simple reason that: the Big Fives arsenals trump all else. Any piddly regional arsenal like that of Pakistan, India, RNK, Israel or Iran is just a paranoids way of having a handgun as a "means to power" in a world in which the real powers use assault rifles, artillery, and airpower. In short, the idea that anyone NEEDS or is entitled to new or additional nukes is just pure silliness, probably mostly motivated by pride, else a desire for inspirational propaganda for the peeps.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Konrad von Richtmark — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:14:53 GMT

[quote][b]cleopatra143 (6/26/2008)[/b][hr]lol Liked that last bit...anyway, if I were Iran I would build them regardless. But that's just me. I always do what people tell me not to. :D[/quote]

Well, I would build them too, and upon having a decent arsenal plus long-range delivery capability, let the whole world know about it. I would not put up with a world order where others have nukes and we have them not, especially when the major nuclear powers have repeatedly refused to even nominally adopt No First Use policies. Especially when offensive nuke use seems to be a socially acceptable idea, even on this very forum.

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Konrad von Richtmark — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:04:07 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (6/25/2008)[/b][hr]It seems kinda irrelevant what the U.S. does. Israel will either get help, or force help.[/quote]

Either that, or they are bluffing in order to prod the US to do it, which I guess they'd have to do quite hard. The Cold War is over, Israel is becoming as much a political liability as an asset to the US.

Remember two years ago when Olmert "slipped" that Israel was ready to use a tactical nuke to take out an Iranian underground nuclear site? They're playing nervous, wanting the US to believe that unless it does something, Israel will make the crap hit the fan.

[quote]We need to either dis- our ally in the region (Israel) or get on with doing what they regard as essential to their survival = beotch slap Iran for flagrantly disregarding what the entire friggin' world (sans the Commies) have been telling them for years: stop, stop, STOP working towards nukes . . . "else we will be very, VERY angry with you and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are with you . . .[/quote]

Oh, cry me a river. The entire world, including the commies, has been telling Israel things for many, many more years. Should Israel also be slapped for not complying with world opinion?

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

Bismarck2990 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:50:46 GMT

[quote]We need to either dis- our ally in the region (Israel) or get on with doing what they regard as essential to their survival = beotch slap Iran for flagrantly disregarding what the entire friggin' world (sans the Commies) have been telling them for years: stop, stop, STOP working towards nukes . . . "else we will be very, VERY angry with you and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are with you . . .[/quote]

That "beotch slap" comment has started my day out right! Thank you. :w00t:

RE: Israel encourging Bush to attack Iran?

cleopatra143 — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:37:20 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (6/25/2008)[/b][hr]Given this:

[quote]Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.[/quote]

It seems kinda irrelevant what the U.S. does. Israel will either get help, or force help.

When your choices are (a) help an ally or (b) be forced to help an ally, it seems logical to me to go with (a) in preference to (b).

Another peek at the larger strategic issues which make short-term solutions like "pulling out of Iraq" incredibly stupid ventures.

We need to either dis- our ally in the region (Israel) or get on with doing what they regard as essential to their survival = beotch slap Iran for flagrantly disregarding what the entire friggin' world (sans the Commies) have been telling them for years: stop, stop, STOP working towards nukes . . . [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT2Ubujppzg]"else we will be very, VERY angry with you[/url] and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are with you . . .[/quote] lol Liked that last bit...anyway, if I were Iran I would build them regardless. But that's just me. I always do what people tell me not to. :D