Iranian Nukes

[Michael]

Iran May Be Able to Build an Atomic Bomb in 5 Years, U.S. and Israeli Officials Fear

TEL AVIV, Jan. 3— Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought, and could be less than five years away from having an atomic bomb, several senior American and Israeli officials say.

"The date by which Iran will have nuclear weapons is no longer 10 years from now," a senior official said recently, referring to previous estimates. "If the Iranians maintain this intensive effort to get everything they need, they could have all their components in two years. Then it will be just a matter of technology and research. If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years."

The reassessment of Iran's nuclear potential is now described by Israeli officials as the most serious threat facing their country.

Senior Israeli officials say that if the program is not halted, they will be forced to consider attacking Iran's nuclear reactors, a tactic they used against Iraq in 1981, when Israeli warplanes bombed an Iraqi reactor.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/05/world/iran-may-be-able-build-atomic-bomb-5-years-us-israeli-officials-fear.html?scp=1&sq=Iran%20May%20Be%20Able%20to%20Build%20an%20Atom ic%20Bomb%20in%205%20Years,%20U.S.%20and%20Israeli %20Officials%20Fear&st=cse)

As Matt Yglesias cleverly stated, Iran was five years away from building a bomb fifteen years ago. :lol:

As far as I'm concerned, the number one world-security issue on the planet is the Israeli-Palestine issue. This is just more of the endless Israeli propaganda campaign to preempt any resolution of their (continued & seemingly permanent) illegal occupation of the West Bank.

Interesting to see how successful Israel is at playing this political spin game after they've been proven wrong on these issues repeatedly.

I don't suppose it might dawn on the Israelis that one of the big reasons Iran might want nuke weapons is because Israel has them - or because of Israel's illegal acts in Palestine. Israel (like the US) seems completely incapable of recognizing their own complicity in their problems and like to pretend that they are some kind of 'innocent victim' of events - which is usually quite laughable, given the events.

[Michael]

Okay... poll added to make this thread more interesting. :D

I'm essentially asking if the West ought to actively prevent, by whatever means necessary, the state of Iran from possessing nuclear weapons? Prevention could be through engagement, negotiation, or military means.

(The software has a hard limit on the length of poll questions!)

[dilettante]

I voted that the West should seek to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and especially from the ability to construct nuclear weapons. I'm less concerned by the idea of Iran simply having a couple of nukes (and everyone knowing they have then) than by the idea of Iran being able to construct an unknown number of nukes that the rest of the world can't keep tabs on.

That said, my answer is based on excising the phrase "by whatever means necessary" from the question. Practically speaking, there's hardly anything I'm willing to advocate be done "by whatever means necessary"; that's just too dangerous a phrase.


Also, shouldn't the question read "We should..." rather than "Should we..."? Either that or change answers to be "Yes" and "No". Or am I just reading it wrong? I haven't had much caffeine yet. :shrug:

[Michael]

Also, shouldn't the question read "We should..." rather than "Should we..."? Either that or change answers to be "Yes" and "No". Or am I just reading it wrong? I haven't had much caffeine yet. :shrug:
Duly corrected. :o

I had to keep changing the question trying to fit the character count limit for poll questions with different variations.

[Michael]

I voted that the West should seek to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and especially from the ability to construct nuclear weapons. I'm less concerned by the idea of Iran simply having a couple of nukes (and everyone knowing they have then) than by the idea of Iran being able to construct an unknown number of nukes that the rest of the world can't keep tabs on.

That said, my answer is based on excising the phrase "by whatever means necessary" from the question. Practically speaking, there's hardly anything I'm willing to advocate be done "by whatever means necessary"; that's just too dangerous a phrase.

I voted that the West should not seek to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that in order to ensure greater peace and prosperity for all, that the West ought to assist Iran to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

The massive powderkeg that is the Middle East is that way because of an imbalance of nuclear weapon security. USA and Israel have it - the Arabs don't. Such imbalances are destabilizing and dangerous to world peace and security.

The historical record shows that a balance of nuclear weapons has proven itself to be security-enhancing. Imbalances of nuclear weapon capability enhances the probability of war.

As a secondary argument, I'd suggest that the West has absolutely no moral, legal or ethical grounds to assert that Iran ought not to have nuclear weapons. The West's record on dealing with nuclear weapons is one of endless hypocrisy and nothing else.

[dilettante]

I voted that the West should not seek to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that in order to ensure greater peace and prosperity for all, that the West ought to assist Iran to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

The massive powderkeg that is the Middle East is that way because of an imbalance of nuclear weapon security. USA and Israel have it - the Arabs don't. Such imbalances are destabilizing and dangerous to world peace and security.

The historical record shows that a balance of nuclear weapons has proven itself to be security-enhancing. Imbalances of nuclear weapon capability enhances the probability of war.

I'm not at all convinced that instability in the ME is a result of any nuclear imbalance; the region was a powder keg before Israel had nukes and I don't see any reason to suspect it won't remain so after Iran has them...it will just be potentially much more explosive.

As far as the historical record goes, it shows that nuclear-armed belligerents often switch to fighting wars by proxy (as the US and the USSR did for decades), something Iran and Israel already do via Hezbollah, Hamas, Lebanon, etc. I don't see how adding Iranian nukes would change that. Israel might be less likely to go to war with a nuclear armed Iran, but the only impetus Israel has for directly attacking Iran at all is to prevent them from acquiring nukes. (and it might be noted that N. Korea's acquiring nuclear weapons hasn't exactly made its relationship with its neighbors more peaceful or friendly, its just encouraged to threaten to declare war every week or so...)
What would giving nuclear capabilities to Iran accomplish except for making it possible for [radical individuals in] Iran to pass one off to Hezbollah or Hamas?

IMO, assuming that M.A.D. would bring stability to the Middle East is to attribute too much rationality to the principle actors in the region. As you're fond of noting, most people aren't terribly rational creatures and the peoples of the ME certainly haven't been an exception.


As a secondary argument, I'd suggest that the West has absolutely no moral, legal or ethical grounds to assert that Iran ought not to have nuclear weapons. The West's record on dealing with nuclear weapons is one of endless hypocrisy and nothing else.

I doubt moral, legal or ethical justifications have ever been major considerations when it came to policing nuclear arms. On that issue, if not on others, everyone seems to be a foreign policy realist.

[Michael]

I'm not at all convinced that instability in the ME is a result of any nuclear imbalance; the region was a powder keg before Israel had nukes and I don't see any reason to suspect it won't remain so after Iran has them...it will just be potentially much more explosive.
I don't think that is based on a fully accurate assessment of recent ME history. :)

I certainly agree that many of the issues and causes of instability in the ME long predate the advent of Israeli nukes. That's obvious.

However, I think if you review the recent history of the region you will notice that things do appear to change around the year 1980. Prior to that time, conflict in the ME was evident and posed a significant and continuous threat of war in the ME, but posed no significant threat to world peace. Indeed, Israel and the Arab nations fought several wars (1947-49, 1967 and 1973) without any danger of serious escalation or spillover to the superpowers. The region was unstable and dangerous certainly, but not dangerous to the outside world.

I will also point out that throughout that period (1949-1980), Israel was generally pushing for a reasonable/peaceful solution/resolution with her Arabic neighbors.

Now move the clock forward to the 1981-present period and things start to look very different. Now Israel consistently acts as the chief roadblock to even having a discussion about a peaceful solution/resolution of the issues with her Arab neighbors. Israel as has also turned from a generally defensive military and political posture into overt preparations for offensive actions (and continuously makes credible threats of initiating military action outside her borders). Israel now openly speaks of permanently annexing the West Bank.

So what happened in the very late 1970s to mark such an abrupt change in Israeli policy?

I do consider it highly relevant information that Israel's [alleged] first successful nuclear weapons test occurred in September 1979 in a joint operation with South Africa which marks the [alleged] beginning of Israeli nuclear weapon capability.

I would assert that this introduction of nuclear weapons capability into the pre-existing ME political situation establishes a categorical asymmetry between the contestants that I have previously argued is inherently destabilizing. As illustration of this, I will assert that the danger of war between USA and USSR was never closer than between 1945 and 1949 when asymmetrical nuclear weapon capability was present.

I will also offer the example of USSR-China in 1969 as further illustration of asymmetrical imbalance causing instability, though both actors were nuclear capable at that time. I would assert that USSR was by far the senior military power at that time with a still very credible first strike capability against China's infant nuclear capability since China's first successful and fully operational test was only in 1967. As this link (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB49/) clearly shows, China had a very real fear of impending Soviet attack. That link-source credibly asserts that the Soviets even sounded out the USA on their reaction to a Soviet first-strike against China in 1969.

And in keeping with my thesis, I assert that the elimination of such nuclear asymmetries leads to [comparatively] better or more stable relationships between quasi-belligerent state actors. In support of this argument I will use the same two examples as above (USA-USSR post 1950s and USSR-China post 1970's) along with India-Pakistan (post 2000) as evidence of [comparatively] improved relationships and more importantly, significant reductions in the probability of immediate war between the quasi-belligerent state-pairings.

As such, I believe that it is rational to conclude from this limited data set that the elimination of the nuclear asymmetry in the ME would likely improve the relationships in the medium-term between the key quasi-belligerent state actors (Israel and Iran in particular, but not exclusively).

Indeed, the one period of particular danger appears to be when a nuclear weapon asymmetry situation becomes close to being eliminated. And the danger here is not the one seeking to eliminate the asymmetry, but the former monopolist. As in economics, monopolies are not generally good things as they serve only the interests of those that possess them.

As far as the historical record goes, it shows that nuclear-armed belligerents often switch to fighting wars by proxy (as the US and the USSR did for decades), something Iran and Israel already do via Hezbollah, Hamas, Lebanon, etc. I don't see how adding Iranian nukes would change that. Israel might be less likely to go to war with a nuclear armed Iran, but the only impetus Israel has for directly attacking Iran at all is to prevent them from acquiring nukes. (and it might be noted that N. Korea's acquiring nuclear weapons hasn't exactly made its relationship with its neighbors more peaceful or friendly, its just encouraged to threaten to declare war every week or so...)
With respect to US-USSR and the cold war, I think it can be shown that the US-USSR didn't seek out their many little proxy-wars. Rather, any war-dispute that broke out anywhere on the planet, tended to quickly turn into a proxy-war between the US-USSR for all the obvious reasons. The key point here being that (relative) nuclear parity did eliminate direct military conflict between the key superpowers - and the petty little proxy wars were (in most cases) going to be fought with or without US-USSR rivalry support.

One only has to look at the incredibly large number of small wars that are presently festering all over the planet to see that these little wars don't need super-power rivalry/support to occur.

With respect to N.Korea, I will suggest that N.Korea's behavior hasn't substantially changed at all in the last few decades. And N.Korea's few nukes and shitty missiles do not come even close to eliminating asymmetry with the USA (and credibly never will). This example is thus in keeping with my thesis and does not substantiate a rebuttal.

As for Israel and Iran and their proxies, I respectfully submit that Israel is a state actor here. It is only Iran and Lebanon that are using proxies here (unless you count Israel as a proxy for USA). This does not rebutt my thesis because Iran/Lebanon are standing at the wrong end of a nuclear asymmetrical situation and thus it is fully rational and expected that they would apply such proxy-guerrilla techniques in opposition to Israel/USA.

What would giving nuclear capabilities to Iran accomplish except for making it possible for [radical individuals in] Iran to pass one off to Hezbollah or Hamas?
:lol:

No, I was just being sensationalist in order to get people's attention for a discussion here. :D

I am not seriously proposing that the West ought to give nuclear weapons technology to Iran. Iran must earn her own nukes the hard way or not at all.

It is sufficient for the West to not go too far in actively seeking to prevent it from occuring. The Western powers all have too much self-interest at stake in actively seeking to prevent it. This worries me.

IMO, assuming that M.A.D. would bring stability to the Middle East is to attribute too much rationality to the principle actors in the region. As you're fond of noting, most people aren't terribly rational creatures and the peoples of the ME certainly haven't been an exception.
That's a fair argument, except that if irrationality is the rule or the key danger, we are already in far more danger from the many thousands of nuke weapons (and far more efficient delivery systems) in the arsenals of USA, Russia, China and India than we are from another couple dozen from Iran.

On what grounds do you assert that Iran is inherently more irrational and/or more unstable than any existing nuclear power?

I doubt moral, legal or ethical justifications have ever been major considerations when it came to policing nuclear arms. On that issue, if not on others, everyone seems to be a foreign policy realist.
Indeed, that's so true.

But you know me, when I want to make a controversial argument, I tend to be quite thorough about it in order to make sure I eliminate in advance all possible avenues for denial of my thesis! :D

[dilettante]

I don't think that is based on a fully accurate assessment of recent ME history. :)

I certainly agree that many of the issues and causes of instability in the ME long predate the advent of Israeli nukes. That's obvious.

However, I think if you review the recent history of the region you will notice that things do appear to change around the year 1980. Prior to that time, conflict in the ME was evident and posed a significant and continuous threat of war in the ME, but posed no significant threat to world peace. Indeed, Israel and the Arab nations fought several wars (1947-49, 1967 and 1973) without any danger of serious escalation or spillover to the superpowers. The region was unstable and dangerous certainly, but not dangerous to the outside world.

I will also point out that throughout that period (1949-1980), Israel was generally pushing for a reasonable/peaceful solution/resolution with her Arabic neighbors.

Now move the clock forward to the 1981-present period and things start to look very different. Now Israel consistently acts as the chief roadblock to even having a discussion about a peaceful solution/resolution of the issues with her Arab neighbors. Israel as has also turned from a generally defensive military and political posture into overt preparations for offensive actions (and continuously makes credible threats of initiating military action outside her borders). Israel now openly speaks of permanently annexing the West Bank.

So what happened in the very late 1970s to mark such an abrupt change in Israeli policy?

I do consider it highly relevant information that Israel's [alleged] first successful nuclear weapons test occurred in September 1979 in a joint operation with South Africa which marks the [alleged] beginning of Israeli nuclear weapon capability.

I would assert that this introduction of nuclear weapons capability into the pre-existing ME political situation establishes a categorical asymmetry between the contestants that I have previously argued is inherently destabilizing. As illustration of this, I will assert that the danger of war between USA and USSR was never closer than between 1945 and 1949 when asymmetrical nuclear weapon capability was present.

I will also offer the example of USSR-China in 1969 as further illustration of asymmetrical imbalance causing instability, though both actors were nuclear capable at that time. I would assert that USSR was by far the senior military power at that time with a still very credible first strike capability against China's infant nuclear capability since China's first successful and fully operational test was only in 1967. As this link (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB49/) clearly shows, China had a very real fear of impending Soviet attack. That link-source credibly asserts that the Soviets even sounded out the USA on their reaction to a Soviet first-strike against China in 1969.

And in keeping with my thesis, I assert that the elimination of such nuclear asymmetries leads to [comparatively] better or more stable relationships between quasi-belligerent state actors. In support of this argument I will use the same two examples as above (USA-USSR post 1950s and USSR-China post 1970's) along with India-Pakistan (post 2000) as evidence of [comparatively] improved relationships and more importantly, significant reductions in the probability of immediate war between the quasi-belligerent state-pairings.

As such, I believe that it is rational to conclude from this limited data set that the elimination of the nuclear asymmetry in the ME would likely improve the relationships in the medium-term between the key quasi-belligerent state actors (Israel and Iran in particular, but not exclusively).

Indeed, the one period of particular danger appears to be when a nuclear weapon asymmetry situation becomes close to being eliminated. And the danger here is not the one seeking to eliminate the asymmetry, but the former monopolist. As in economics, monopolies are not generally good things as they serve only the interests of those that possess them.


But Israel possessed (and was generally known to possess) multiple nuclear weapons in the late 1960s. If the (supposed) test in '79 and the policy changes in 1980 are connected, I'd suggest it makes much more sense to see them as correlative: both the nuclear test and the altered policy were the result of changing politics/culture.
But the nuclear imbalance itself existed for (at least) a decade before that.


With respect to US-USSR and the cold war, I think it can be shown that the US-USSR didn't seek out their many little proxy-wars. Rather, any war-dispute that broke out anywhere on the planet, tended to quickly turn into a proxy-war between the US-USSR for all the obvious reasons. The key point here being that (relative) nuclear parity did eliminate direct military conflict between the key superpowers - and the petty little proxy wars were (in most cases) going to be fought with or without US-USSR rivalry support.

One only has to look at the incredibly large number of small wars that are presently festering all over the planet to see that these little wars don't need super-power rivalry/support to occur.

That point, however, is that M.A.D. keeps nuclear-armed states from going to war directly with each other; it doesn't seem to keep them from going to war with third parties or supporting third parties against their rival (as the US did in supplying Afganhistan and as the USSR in supplying Vietnam). And that is precisely the kind of conflict destabilizing the M.E. these days.


:lol:

No, I was just being sensationalist in order to get people's attention for a discussion here. :D

I am not seriously proposing that the West ought to give nuclear weapons technology to Iran. Iran must earn her own nukes the hard way or not at all.

It is sufficient for the West to not go too far in actively seeking to prevent it from occuring. The Western powers all have too much self-interest at stake in actively seeking to prevent it. This worries me.

Whether Iran is given nukes or develops them, I still don't see what the positive outcome would be. What precisely would nuclear parity between Israel and Iran create/prevent?


That's a fair argument, except that if irrationality is the rule or the key danger, we are already in far more danger from the many thousands of nuke weapons (and far more efficient delivery systems) in the arsenals of USA, Russia, China and India than we are from another couple dozen from Iran.

On what grounds do you assert that Iran is inherently more irrational and/or more unstable than any existing nuclear power?


I have two responses to that:

First, and primarily, even if every nation were equally irrational with their nukes, it seems logical that we would want as few people to have them as possible.
Contrary to what the NRA might have us believe, I don't think giving everyone a uzi is the fastest way to end gun violence. The more irrational people who have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that one of them is going to do something stupid with them and blow the world to smithereens.

Second, most existing nuclear powers (the US, China, Russia, India...) have quite a bit more invested in global stability than Iran does. A rogue nuclear device going off in New York (or Moscow, or Tel Aviv) would cause massive political and economic panics that would hurt China or India far more than they would hurt Iran. Simply put, Iran has less to lose and more to gain from 'accidentally' letting one of their nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands (as long as they can avoid the blame for it...say by pointing the finger at N. Korea).

[Americano]

I'm enjoying the debate. I voted disagree in the poll and would, without disrupting the debaters, like to raise one question regarding Iran's potential ability to supply nuclear weapons to third parties: it's my understanding that processed radioactive components of nuclear weapons have unique trace signatures which, without question, define their nuclear country of origin.

If a third party did secure a nuke from Iran and use it as a WMD, I'd think nuke missiles from all other nuclear capable countries with delivery capability would soon crowd air space to obliterate Iran. My question is I find it difficult to attach that level of stupidity to Iran.

[Michael]

I'm enjoying the debate. I voted disagree in the poll and would, without disrupting the debaters, like to raise one question regarding Iran's potential ability to supply nuclear weapons to third parties: it's my understanding that processed radioactive components of nuclear weapons have unique trace signatures which, without question, define their nuclear country of origin.

If a third party did secure a nuke from Iran and use it as a WMD, I'd think nuke missiles from all other nuclear capable countries with delivery capability would soon crowd air space to obliterate Iran. My question is I find it difficult to attach that level of stupidity to Iran.

As far as I know, all nukes have unique signatures due to the artificial creation of isotopes. These can be traced so anyone passing around rogue nukes is definitely going to be identified. This strongly mitigates against any nation secretly giving away nuke weapons to 3rd parties.

Secondly, I think this issue is generally overblown since in 60 years of nuke existence we have ZERO cases of this occuring. We don't even have a single credible case of it 'almost' happening. We have no evidence of any rogue terrorist groups actively seeking to buy one either. Sure it is always potentially possible, but it would appear that nuclear powers all have strong vested interests in not doing so. Indeed, what is the risk that a rogue nuke that Iran gives away ends up in the wrong hands an used against Iran?

Also, I think it is relevant to take note of the fact that one can make the same argument about chemical or biological weapons. Why don't we worry that various disreputable nations will give away these types of weapons to rogue terrorist groups? These weapons also share unique signatures - the gas Saddam used on the Kurds allegedly traces to Virginia in origin. Likewise with the anthrax that showed up in the USA - Virginia origin.

It is also relevant to consider the fact that the operation of a renegade nuke still requires the expert assistance of nuclear weapons experts for handling and these are unique skills and thus relatively few in number and are usually known to intelligence agencies and thus passively monitored.

Lastly, I'd also add that any Iranian nuke weapons (if their program is successful) are likely only to be counted as a few dozen given the enormous cost to produce and store these things, not to mention the extremely expensive delivery systems they require. Small numbers are generally easier to secure. Thus I think it is statistically probable that USA and Russia are far more likely to 'accidentally' lose a nuke than one of the small nuke powers just based on the sheer numbers of nukes out there.

On this basis, I can't see how a nuclear armed Iran can be rationally perceived to represent a material increase to the inherent danger of renegade terrorist nukes.

[Michael]

But Israel possessed (and was generally known to possess) multiple nuclear weapons in the late 1960s. If the (supposed) test in '79 and the policy changes in 1980 are connected, I'd suggest it makes much more sense to see them as correlative: both the nuclear test and the altered policy were the result of changing politics/culture.
But the nuclear imbalance itself existed for (at least) a decade before that.

There is a big difference between achieving a successful test and actually having fully functional nuke weapons on the shelf ready to roll. Many years pass between these two situations. Witness the 1969 situation between USSR-China.

Secondly, there is no way to actually 'prove' when the Israeli nuke program became operational other than to cite the 1979 date since the Israelis and their American allies are extremely tight-lipped about the issue.

I think it is safe to say that Israel was in full possession of nuclear weapons with delivery systems - on the shelf - by the late 1970's. I don't think it is credible to assert that Israel had a functional nuclear arsenal prior to the mid-1970s (though they may of had the technology).

N.Korea is a good example. They demonstrated that they had the key technology quite a few years ago. But they have not yet demonstrated that they actually have a functional weapon. They clearly don't have nuclear weapons capability sitting on the shelf available to be used. It takes years of dedicated development to turn the theory into manufactured physical objects.

Ergo, I think it is unsupportable to say that Israel was a nuclear-armed nation in the 1960s. Evidence from the later 1970s is much more substantial.

That point, however, is that M.A.D. keeps nuclear-armed states from going to war directly with each other; it doesn't seem to keep them from going to war with third parties or supporting third parties against their rival (as the US did in supplying Afganhistan and as the USSR in supplying Vietnam). And that is precisely the kind of conflict destabilizing the M.E. these days.
And as I noted in reply, supplying third party proxies does not require MAD.

Powerful nations have a long history of 3rd party proxy support for armed insurgents against their opponents. That's good strategy. I don't see how the presence or absence of MAD changes this at all.

And the fact remains that MAD has a proven track record in virtually eliminating direct competitor conflict. Given that nuclear powered nations are amongst the most powerful military nations on the planet, this is a damn good policy.

If nuclear parity reduces direct competitor conflict, then even if it does increase 3rd party proxy conflict (no proof either way), then it is still viable and desirable regardless of 3rd party proxy conflict, since these 3rd party proxy conflicts do not pose a substantial danger of nuclear war.

Please remember that the goal cannot be the elimination of war (although that might be nice). The reasonable goal here is the elimination of the probability of the usage of nuclear weapons of any kind.

Whether Iran is given nukes or develops them, I still don't see what the positive outcome would be. What precisely would nuclear parity between Israel and Iran create/prevent?
It creates/prevents nothing. What it does do is apparently reduces one party's perception of their own weakness/victim/humiliation status and increases their overall national sense of security.

This is why I pointed to Israel's notable change in political stance - in the earlier phase they clearly felt weak, surrounded and defensive. In the present phase, they clearly feel strong, secure and able to be aggressive. The reason for this is the existence of their nuclear weapon security blanket.

Iranian nuke weapons will greatly reduce Iran's feeling of being weak and surrounded by nuclear armed enemies (US, Israel & India). With Iranian nukes, Iran can demand to be treated like an equal - with diplomats sitting around tables. Without Iranian nukes, diplomats sitting around tables are a strategem the West can hold to its arbitrary will.

I have two responses to that:

First, and primarily, even if every nation were equally irrational with their nukes, it seems logical that we would want as few people to have them as possible.
Contrary to what the NRA might have us believe, I don't think giving everyone a uzi is the fastest way to end gun violence. The more irrational people who have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that one of them is going to do something stupid with them and blow the world to smithereens.

Second, most existing nuclear powers (the US, China, Russia, India...) have quite a bit more invested in global stability than Iran does. A rogue nuclear device going off in New York (or Moscow, or Tel Aviv) would cause massive political and economic panics that would hurt China or India far more than they would hurt Iran. Simply put, Iran has less to lose and more to gain from 'accidentally' letting one of their nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands (as long as they can avoid the blame for it...say by pointing the finger at N. Korea).
I agree with the first paragraph. The greater the number of nuke weapons, the greater the theoretical danger. And which is why all nations and all people have an interest in trying to keep this number as low as possible.

That being said, I have pointed out that within this vast number of existing world-wide nukes, certain relative and/or regional nuclear imbalances (asymmetries) can represent an increase in the potential risk of nuclear weapons usage. We must keep in mind the conditions under which actual nuclear weapons have been used (twice) in the past (monopoly/asymmetry).

One can also make a statistical argument that the incremental increase in danger from seeing a few dozen Iranian nukes added to the pile is incrementally very tiny compared to the overall risk posed by the existence of the whole pile in the first place. One must also weigh this risk against the possibility that preventing Iranian nukes might increase the risk of a nuclear weapon being used by Israel (since Israel will continue to hold a regional monopoly/asymmetry). Our only evidence available on the actual usage of nuke weapons says that situations of monopoly/asymmetry are the most dangerous.

With regard to your second point there, I respectfully submit that the same "less to lose" argument applies to Pakistan and India quite well. And yet, formal and official diplomatic relations between Pakistan and India only really began after the nuclear asymmetry was eliminated in the late 1990s. Leaders of Pakistan and India paid symbolic 'first' visits to each nation in 2000/2001. While tensions between the two remain high (as they did between USA-USSR in the cold war, and USSR-China), it is asserted here that this represents an actual improvement over earlier periods of intense confrontation.

As for the rogue terrorist bomb, I think it is well established that nuke signatures would make it difficult to deny the state of origin, making significant repercussions almost certain.

[Zarquon]

And the fact remains that MAD has a proven track record in virtually eliminating direct competitor conflict. Given that nuclear powered nations are amongst the most powerful military nations on the planet, this is a damn good policy.

If nuclear parity reduces direct competitor conflict, then even if it does increase 3rd party proxy conflict (no proof either way), then it is still viable and desirable regardless of 3rd party proxy conflict, since these 3rd party proxy conflicts do not pose a substantial danger of nuclear war.

Please remember that the goal cannot be the elimination of war (although that might be nice). The reasonable goal here is the elimination of the probability of the usage of nuclear weapons of any kind.


It creates/prevents nothing. What it does do is apparently reduces one party's perception of their own weakness/victim/humiliation status and increases their overall national sense of security.

This is why I pointed to Israel's notable change in political stance - in the earlier phase they clearly felt weak, surrounded and defensive. In the present phase, they clearly feel strong, secure and able to be aggressive. The reason for this is the existence of their nuclear weapon security blanket.

Iranian nuke weapons will greatly reduce Iran's feeling of being weak and surrounded by nuclear armed enemies (US, Israel & India). With Iranian nukes, Iran can demand to be treated like an equal - with diplomats sitting around tables. Without Iranian nukes, diplomats sitting around tables are a strategem the West can hold to its arbitrary will.


I agree with the first paragraph. The greater the number of nuke weapons, the greater the theoretical danger. And which is why all nations and all people have an interest in trying to keep this number as low as possible.

That being said, I have pointed out that within this vast number of existing world-wide nukes, certain relative and/or regional nuclear imbalances (asymmetries) can represent an increase in the potential risk of nuclear weapons usage. We must keep in mind the conditions under which actual nuclear weapons have been used (twice) in the past (monopoly/asymmetry).

One can also make a statistical argument that the incremental increase in danger from seeing a few dozen Iranian nukes added to the pile is incrementally very tiny compared to the overall risk posed by the existence of the whole pile in the first place. One must also weigh this risk against the possibility that preventing Iranian nukes might increase the risk of a nuclear weapon being used by Israel (since Israel will continue to hold a regional monopoly/asymmetry). Our only evidence available on the actual usage of nuke weapons says that situations of monopoly/asymmetry are the most dangerous.

With regard to your second point there, I respectfully submit that the same "less to lose" argument applies to Pakistan and India quite well. And yet, formal and official diplomatic relations between Pakistan and India only really began after the nuclear asymmetry was eliminated in the late 1990s. Leaders of Pakistan and India paid symbolic 'first' visits to each nation in 2000/2001. While tensions between the two remain high (as they did between USA-USSR in the cold war, and USSR-China), it is asserted here that this represents an actual improvement over earlier periods of intense confrontation.

As for the rogue terrorist bomb, I think it is well established that nuke signatures would make it difficult to deny the state of origin, making significant repercussions almost certain.
Damn it man, can't really find anything to call you out on, but I'll try.
I must point out that India is not an enemy of Iran, not an ally or even on favorable terms but certainly not an enemy(it was on favorable terms until the Indo-US Nuclear Deal and India's admission to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and India's vote against Iran in the same body; now the relationship is neutral, and diplomacy is still robust).
And I'm not completely convinced by M.A.D; both the Soviets and the Americans were more or less 'materialistic', and hence saw the light of self-preservation whereas I wouldn't put it past some of the Iranians(rulers) and their proxies to quash some infidels, consequences be damned; and the political rise and power of the Ultra Orthodox Jews-Hard Right in Israel is also very unsettling, and sets the stage for more conflict and raises the probability of irrational actions. But again, I see how, in all likelihood, a more symmetrical N-weapons situation between the two can reduce the probability of war and catastrophe.

[Americano]

Damn it man, can't really find anything to call you out on, but I'll try.
I must point out that India is not an enemy of Iran, not an ally or even on favorable terms but certainly not an enemy(it was on favorable terms until the Indo-US Nuclear Deal and India's admission to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and India's vote against Iran in the same body; now the relationship is neutral, and diplomacy is still robust).
And I'm not completely convinced by M.A.D; both the Soviets and the Americans were more or less 'materialistic', and hence saw the light of self-preservation whereas I wouldn't put it past some of the Iranians(rulers) and their proxies to quash some infidels, consequences be damned; and the political rise and power of the Ultra Orthodox Jews-Hard Right in Israel is also very unsettling, and sets the stage for more conflict and raises the probability of irrational actions. But again, I see how, in all likelihood, a more symmetrical N-weapons situation between the two can reduce the probability of war and catastrophe.

As HPCL has received favorable credit terms to import 25% of its annual crude requirement from Iran (reducing imports from Iraq at the same level) and India signing a $40B 25-year LPG contract with Iran plus ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) getting a 20% share in the development of Iran’s biggest onshore oil field, Yadavaran, and 100% in 30,000 barrels per day of the Jufeyr field I'd think Indian/Iranian diplomacy is very, very robust.

[dilettante]

And as I noted in reply, supplying third party proxies does not require MAD.

Powerful nations have a long history of 3rd party proxy support for armed insurgents against their opponents. That's good strategy. I don't see how the presence or absence of MAD changes this at all.

And the fact remains that MAD has a proven track record in virtually eliminating direct competitor conflict. Given that nuclear powered nations are amongst the most powerful military nations on the planet, this is a damn good policy.

If nuclear parity reduces direct competitor conflict, then even if it does increase 3rd party proxy conflict (no proof either way), then it is still viable and desirable regardless of 3rd party proxy conflict, since these 3rd party proxy conflicts do not pose a substantial danger of nuclear war.

Please remember that the goal cannot be the elimination of war (although that might be nice). The reasonable goal here is the elimination of the probability of the usage of nuclear weapons of any kind.

But again, Iran and Israel have no direct conflict! And, except for this issue of a nuclear Iran, there's no reason for them to and quite a big reason (the several nations between them) for them to avoid it.
Even if nuclear parity reliable prevents direct conflict, that's the solution to a problem that doesn't exist!

Furthermore, a nuclear Iran doesn't just end a nuclear imbalance with Israel, it CREATES a whole new set nuclear imbalances with everyone else in the region (including Iraq, a nation that Iran actually has gone to war with). To assume that a nuclear Iran = nuclear parity in the middle east is to vastly over-simplify the politics of the region.


It creates/prevents nothing. What it does do is apparently reduces one party's perception of their own weakness/victim/humiliation status and increases their overall national sense of security.

This is why I pointed to Israel's notable change in political stance - in the earlier phase they clearly felt weak, surrounded and defensive. In the present phase, they clearly feel strong, secure and able to be aggressive. The reason for this is the existence of their nuclear weapon security blanket.

Iranian nuke weapons will greatly reduce Iran's feeling of being weak and surrounded by nuclear armed enemies (US, Israel & India). With Iranian nukes, Iran can demand to be treated like an equal - with diplomats sitting around tables. Without Iranian nukes, diplomats sitting around tables are a strategem the West can hold to its arbitrary will.

Frankly, I don't really want Iran feeling any more "able to be aggressive" than it already is! I want them to feel as uncomfortable with aggression as possible. Indeed, it seems all too likely that nuclear weapons would only make Iran feel more "comfortable" supporting third party militants, knowing that it is more or less immune from direct retaliation. That is not a recipe for peace in the region.

I can respect general theories of the advantages of nuclear parity, but in this instance, I submit that there are no practical advantages to be had. I see no way that it will directly help the situation, either by preventing ongoing violence or encouraging peace. The possibilities of Iran feeling some abstract sense of well-being aside, there's no practical reason having nukes would keep them from funding third-party militants or make them feel all cozy toward Israel.
And without some sort of practical benefit, I don't see any justification for increasing the number of nuclear wielding powers in that horribly unstable region of the world.


I agree with the first paragraph. The greater the number of nuke weapons, the greater the theoretical danger. And which is why all nations and all people have an interest in trying to keep this number as low as possible.

Indeed.


That being said, I have pointed out that within this vast number of existing world-wide nukes, certain relative and/or regional nuclear imbalances (asymmetries) can represent an increase in the potential risk of nuclear weapons usage. We must keep in mind the conditions under which actual nuclear weapons have been used (twice) in the past (monopoly/asymmetry).

One can also make a statistical argument that the incremental increase in danger from seeing a few dozen Iranian nukes added to the pile is incrementally very tiny compared to the overall risk posed by the existence of the whole pile in the first place. One must also weigh this risk against the possibility that preventing Iranian nukes might increase the risk of a nuclear weapon being used by Israel (since Israel will continue to hold a regional monopoly/asymmetry). Our only evidence available on the actual usage of nuke weapons says that situations of monopoly/asymmetry are the most dangerous.

But again, Israel and Iran have no reason to go to war (nuclear or otherwise) outside of the issue of Iran's nuclear program. They can growl at each other all they want and fight via third party, but the chance of open conflict between them exists only because of Iran's nuclear development.

Furthermore, regarding statistics, I'd point out that while there has been only one conflict in which an asymmetry of nuclear capabilities resulted in the deploying of nuclear weapons, there have been numerous conflicts (i.e. every other war the US and USSR were involved in AND Israel's conflicts since the 1970s) in which such an asymmetry did not lead to the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, modern nuclear weapons, which are so different in power and delivery from the WWII devices that its a stretch to consider them the same "weapon", have never been used in warfare.

So, with all that in mind, let's say that nuclear asymmetry slightly increases the odds of nuclear deployment (though obviously the odds are extremely low either way, just based on the historical record). That has to be balanced with the fact that nuclear parity vastly increases the destruction wrought by such a deployment. In the rather unlikely event that Israel nuked a non-nuclear Iran (for reasons difficult to fathom), thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, would die. If, in the perhaps slightly more unlikely even that Israel and a nuclear Iran got into a nuclear slugging match, then pretty much everybody in both countries dies.
In short, at best, we slightly decrease the odds of nuclear use while vastly increasing the destruction such use would entail.

And that to stop a sort of direct conflict which doesn't exist? That's not good policy.


With regard to your second point there, I respectfully submit that the same "less to lose" argument applies to Pakistan and India quite well. And yet, formal and official diplomatic relations between Pakistan and India only really began after the nuclear asymmetry was eliminated in the late 1990s. Leaders of Pakistan and India paid symbolic 'first' visits to each nation in 2000/2001. While tensions between the two remain high (as they did between USA-USSR in the cold war, and USSR-China), it is asserted here that this represents an actual improvement over earlier periods of intense confrontation.

Ah, I agree that Pakistan and India make a perfect analogy! A nuclear Pakistan is a horribly scary thing. We're now constantly worried about the stability of that nation for fear of what happens to those weapons if the government dissolves into chaos.
However, there are compensatory benefits. India and Pakistan do seem to get along better. Nuclear parity helped because these were two nations with a long history of direct conflict and a contested border region. M.A.D. successfully reigned in their tendency to go directly to war with each other and, this, to some extent, makes the increased likelihood of rogue nukes more palatable.

But, yet again, Iran and Israel have no direct conflict. A nuclear Iran offers no advantages that aren't already in place but it brings with it all the risks associated with increasing the number of nuclear-wielding regimes and the related risk that one of them will be do something crazy and kill millions and millions of people.

[Michael]

Damn it man, can't really find anything to call you out on, but I'll try.
That's mighty kind of you. You are to be encouraged in your ventures as I do like good arguments. :)

I must point out that India is not an enemy of Iran, not an ally or even on favorable terms but certainly not an enemy(it was on favorable terms until the Indo-US Nuclear Deal and India's admission to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and India's vote against Iran in the same body; now the relationship is neutral, and diplomacy is still robust).
It is true that India is not an enemy of Iran and I didn't mean to assert that they were. That being said, India can't really be considered a traditional cultural friend of Shi'ite Iran either. India is just another powerful outsider/neighbor with nukes - which was the point I was making in reference to Iran's own security situation.

Btw, I'd say that India has a very strong self-interest in cultivating Iranian friendship if only to neutralize a potential Iranian-Pakistani partnership. The Iranian government would be fools not to see this. By the same token, Iran has a fairly strong interest in cultivating Indian friendship for economic trade reasons (with existing European/American trade sanctions). That's a good basis for a beneficial economic relationship between the two, but that doesn't help Iran's security problem at all (it does help India's security position though).

Ergo, I stand by my earlier statement - with the caveat that India certainly isn't an outward enemy or material threat to Iran. India represents a good economic partner for Iran, but is quite unlikely to be a serious security-enhancing partnership. I'd say Iran would be far better off talking to Russia for that purpose, but that's beside the point.

And I'm not completely convinced by M.A.D; both the Soviets and the Americans were more or less 'materialistic', and hence saw the light of self-preservation whereas I wouldn't put it past some of the Iranians(rulers) and their proxies to quash some infidels, consequences be damned; and the political rise and power of the Ultra Orthodox Jews-Hard Right in Israel is also very unsettling, and sets the stage for more conflict and raises the probability of irrational actions. But again, I see how, in all likelihood, a more symmetrical N-weapons situation between the two can reduce the probability of war and catastrophe.
That's a reasonable doubt. But given the seriousness of the issue, I think that a balance of probabilities is a far better standard.

I accept MAD absolutely because it has a 100% track record and that is a super-important metric on this issue - given that the slightest error could wipe out life the planet in a matter of minutes. The proverbial stakes are exponentially higher than normal on this issue, so I'm going with the track record on this one. I don't see how anyone can rationally entertain doubt on this point.

With respect to the ultra-rightwing in Israel, I believe they are as dangerous as the rising ultra-rightwing in the USA (part and parcel of the same phenomena I'd say). But that's a normative political issue that can be addressed in normative political terms. Late period Stalin was far more scary-dangerous than anything I've ever seen or heard from [post-revolutionary] Iran. Give Ike a god-damned medal for keeping a lid on that powderkeg with a short fuse!

As for Iran, I respectfully submit that Iran's international behavior has been 100% rational and almost entirely predictable since 1979. I will also point out that the cacophony of western accusations of expected Iranian irrational dangerousness since 1979 has been incessant (and ultimately wrong). I see no reason to believe these assertions now after thirty years of predictive failure.

[Michael]

As HPCL has received favorable credit terms to import 25% of its annual crude requirement from Iran (reducing imports from Iraq at the same level) and India signing a $40B 25-year LPG contract with Iran plus ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) getting a 20% share in the development of Iran’s biggest onshore oil field, Yadavaran, and 100% in 30,000 barrels per day of the Jufeyr field I'd think Indian/Iranian diplomacy is very, very robust.

That shows a fine economic relationship. But that isn't worth sqwat at the UNSC or if Israel attacks Iran.

[Americano]

That shows a fine economic relationship. But that isn't worth sqwat at the UNSC or if Israel attacks Iran.

Agreed, Israel being the wild card, kept in place for US hegemony purposes.

[Michael]

But again, Iran and Israel have no direct conflict! And, except for this issue of a nuclear Iran, there's no reason for them to and quite a big reason (the several nations between them) for them to avoid it.
Even if nuclear parity reliable prevents direct conflict, that's the solution to a problem that doesn't exist!
Then how do you explain direct Israeli (official) threats of military attack against Iran?

That's the real driving force of this issue. Israel has said that they are going to hit Iran if someone else doesn't solve the "problem" with Iran. That's official Israeli policy on the table.

Nobody knows what Iran's response to an Israeli "hit" might entail, thus the European diplomats and the UN have had their knickers in a knot ever since trying to prevent that by getting Iran to bow before Israel and the USA (i.e. give up formal sovereignty and do what the outsiders are telling them to do). And once you see it in those terms, you will understand why the strategy is doomed to failure. And the historical track record with strategies that are 'doomed to fail' is really ugly.

Furthermore, a nuclear Iran doesn't just end a nuclear imbalance with Israel, it CREATES a whole new set nuclear imbalances with everyone else in the region (including Iraq, a nation that Iran actually has gone to war with). To assume that a nuclear Iran = nuclear parity in the middle east is to vastly over-simplify the politics of the region.
Just for the record, US-client Iraq attacked/invaded Iran. That's a really poor example for your argument and additional support for mine. Iran has damn good reasons to fear US enmity and military attack. Israel is just another US-client.

As for the point of 'parity', I've not spoken of 'parity'. The term I have used is 'asymmetry'. These terms are very different. And with nukes, one is a very big number and not all that much different than a thousand. (delivery systems are a different matter though!)

So the bottom line is that my argument is not predicated upon the assertion of "nuclear Iran = nuclear parity in the middle east". It is more like 'nuclear Iran = end of US-client Israeli direct threat of attacking Iran'. And that is a good thing in my book. I firmly believe that eliminating the ability of the US to attack Iran (via proxy) is a viable goal if one values peace and prosperity in this world.

Frankly, I don't really want Iran feeling any more "able to be aggressive" than it already is! I want them to feel as uncomfortable with aggression as possible. Indeed, it seems all too likely that nuclear weapons would only make Iran feel more "comfortable" supporting third party militants, knowing that it is more or less immune from direct retaliation. That is not a recipe for peace in the region.
Nor do I. I'm not proclaiming peace in the middle east. That's a rather high bar that I'm not addressing. I'll settle for a slight reduction in the likelihood of the US (or US-clients) attacking anyone there. That in itself would go a long way to reduce tension in the Middle East. It won't eliminate it entirely of course.

Indeed, the Middle East is much like Europe used to be - a place with way too much history and not enough geography. Iranian nukes ain't going to solve the problems there, but it might prevent the USA and Israel from being able to add to those problems.

I can respect general theories of the advantages of nuclear parity, but in this instance, I submit that there are no practical advantages to be had. I see no way that it will directly help the situation, either by preventing ongoing violence or encouraging peace. The possibilities of Iran feeling some abstract sense of well-being aside, there's no practical reason having nukes would keep them from funding third-party militants or make them feel all cozy toward Israel.
Cozy with Israel is an impossibly high standard to judge by.

I offer Pakistan as an example. Relations between Pakistan and India are always tense and never good. But the formal relationship is better and more secure now than ever before (marginal improvement from 'horrific-scary' to 'polite but tense'). And those official overtures only occured AFTER the nuclear asymmetry was eliminated.

And I agree that Iranian nukes would not eliminate the reason that Iran supports 3rd party militants in the short term. But it likely would reduce it over the medium term since the primary purpose of these 3rd party militants (from Iran's perspective) is to serve as a counter-weapon to the asymmetric military power of Israel and USA. If the threat of Israeli-US attack is diminished, the need of Iranian counter-attack is equally diminished.

Besides, many of those 3rd party militias are devoted to an entirely separate issue that equally involves Israel and USA (Palestine) but not Iran. As long as Israel continues to militarily occupy Palestine, you can guarentee that the Arab nations are going to support 3rd party militias in support of Palestine. Iranian nukes have nothing to do with that.

And without some sort of practical benefit, I don't see any justification for increasing the number of nuclear wielding powers in that horribly unstable region of the world.
I don't recall the USA, USSR, China, Britain, France, India, Israel, Pakistan or N.Korea asking permission of anyone.

I do believe the exact same argument you are making now could have been made nine times already with zero difference. :shrug:

But again, Israel and Iran have no reason to go to war (nuclear or otherwise) outside of the issue of Iran's nuclear program. They can growl at each other all they want and fight via third party, but the chance of open conflict between them exists only because of Iran's nuclear development.
You seem to be conveniently overlooking formal Israel threats of direct attack against Iran. That is enormously significant here, particularly given that Israel is a US-client state (just like Saddam's Iraq was when it attacked Iran).

Furthermore, regarding statistics, I'd point out that while there has been only one conflict in which an asymmetry of nuclear capabilities resulted in the deploying of nuclear weapons, there have been numerous conflicts (i.e. every other war the US and USSR were involved in AND Israel's conflicts since the 1970s) in which such an asymmetry did not lead to the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, modern nuclear weapons, which are so different in power and delivery from the WWII devices that its a stretch to consider them the same "weapon", have never been used in warfare.
What? A nuke is a nuke. They are in a class by themselves. So what if a WW2 atom bomb might only kill 100,000 and leave nuclear residue for thousands of years? How is that materially different than a modern nuke?

And again, you are overlooking the formal Israeli threat to attack Iran - specifically nuclear facilities.

So, with all that in mind, let's say that nuclear asymmetry slightly increases the odds of nuclear deployment (though obviously the odds are extremely low either way, just based on the historical record). That has to be balanced with the fact that nuclear parity vastly increases the destruction wrought by such a deployment. In the rather unlikely event that Israel nuked a non-nuclear Iran (for reasons difficult to fathom), thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, would die. If, in the perhaps slightly more unlikely even that Israel and a nuclear Iran got into a nuclear slugging match, then pretty much everybody in both countries dies.
In short, at best, we slightly decrease the odds of nuclear use while vastly increasing the destruction such use would entail.
I don't accept that math at all. The difference between 100 nukes and 1000 nukes is irrelevant. 10-20 nukes going off is likely to be plenty sufficient to eliminate the human species.

And that to stop a sort of direct conflict which doesn't exist? That's not good policy.
I think you have this backwards. The "policy" that is operation is the one that is demanding that Iran surrender on the nuke issue or face the military consequences.

That's the policy that is heating up the situation and increasing the likelihood of war.

The "policy" that I counsel here is to stop doing that - thus decreasing the likelihood of endless 'terrorist' war in the Middle East.

Ah, I agree that Pakistan and India make a perfect analogy! A nuclear Pakistan is a horribly scary thing. We're now constantly worried about the stability of that nation for fear of what happens to those weapons if the government dissolves into chaos.
Ah yes, another US-client state and cold-war proxy.

It is the US-client state status that has always made Pakistan so dangerous to itself.

And once again, previous US foreign policy errors are paying ugly dividends. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of all policies that serve US foreign policy interests. The long-term track record on those isn't very impressive. If US foreign policy insists that Iran must surrender on the nuke issue, I can pretty much guarentee that the US government and American citizens will ultimately regret that policy. That's a very easy prediction to make.

However, there are compensatory benefits. India and Pakistan do seem to get along better. Nuclear parity helped because these were two nations with a long history of direct conflict and a contested border region. M.A.D. successfully reigned in their tendency to go directly to war with each other and, this, to some extent, makes the increased likelihood of rogue nukes more palatable.
Precisely the same situation with USA and USSR. I might add here as an aside that the there was ZERO history of direct conflict between USA and USSR prior to the nuclear era - indeed, they were formal allies (technically speaking).

But, yet again, Iran and Israel have no direct conflict. A nuclear Iran offers no advantages that aren't already in place but it brings with it all the risks associated with increasing the number of nuclear-wielding regimes and the related risk that one of them will be do something crazy and kill millions and millions of people.
Yes, that's a real risk.

But to say that there is no direct conflict between Israel and Iran (or between USA and Iran) is just not credible. The historical record is very strong here and as I keep repeating, this whole issue is being politically driven by Israel's threat of attacking Iran if the nuke 'problem' isn't solved to Israel's satisfaction. That's the push here. That's the active policy that the West is marching to right now.

[Zarquon]

this whole issue is being politically driven by Israel's threat of attacking Iran if the nuke 'problem' isn't solved to Israel's satisfaction. That's the push here. That's the active policy that the West is marching to right now.
What about Ahmadinejad's threats of wiping Israel off the map, that stoked this in the first place? mere rhetoric?

[Michael]

What about Ahmadinejad's threats of wiping Israel off the map, that stoked this in the first place? mere rhetoric?
Not much different than McCain's "Bomb, bomb Iran" song or the massive pop-culture wave during the 1980's in the USA to "nuke Iran".

Domestic political rhetoric is one thing, formal threats another.

And this whole issue didn't "begin" with the election of Ahmadinejad as President of Iran. That's just a pro-Israel talking point.

[Michael]

Here some expert American intelligence on the issue of Iranian nukes...

“Late 1991: In congressional reports and CIA assessments, the United States estimates that there is a ‘high degree of certainty that the government of Iran has acquired all or virtually all of the components required for the construction of two to three nuclear weapons.’ A February 1992 report by the U.S. House of Representatives suggests that these two or three nuclear weapons will be operational between February and April 1992.”

“February 24, 1993: CIA director James Woolsey says that Iran is still 8 to 10 years away from being able to produce its own nuclear weapon, but with assistance from abroad it could become a nuclear power earlier.”

“January 1995: The director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, John Holum, testifies that Iran could have the bomb by 2003.”

“January 5, 1995: U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry says that Iran may be less than five years from building an atomic bomb, although ‘how soon…depends how they go about getting it.’”

“April 29, 1996: Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres says ‘he believes that in four years, they [Iran] may reach nuclear weapons.’”

“October 21, 1998: General Anthony Zinni, head of U.S. Central Command, says Iran could have the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons within five years. ‘If I were a betting man,’ he said, ‘I would say they are on track within five years, they would have the capability.’”

“January 17, 2000: A new CIA assessment on Iran’s nuclear capabilities says that the CIA cannot rule out the possibility that Iran may possess nuclear weapons. The assessment is based on the CIA’s admission that it cannot monitor Iran’s nuclear activities with any precision and hence cannot exclude the prospect that Iran may have nuclear weapons.”

Source (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/24/bad-intelligence-but-in-which-direction/)

Kind of difficult to take these clowns seriously once they have an ideological bee in their bonnet.

[Zarquon]

Here some expert American intelligence on the issue of Iranian nukes...



Source (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/24/bad-intelligence-but-in-which-direction/)

Kind of difficult to take these clowns seriously once they have an ideological bee in their bonnet.
and that's from the Cato institute!
Wow, just completely shocking (to me) how bad and political US intelligence is(I thought Iraq was an exception).:eek:

[Michael]

and that's from the Cato institute!
Wow, just completely shocking (to me) how bad and political US intelligence is(I thought Iraq was an exception).:eek:

Those of us who are familiar with "Team B" from the 1970s are not shocked.

CIA offered analysis of the size of the Soviet military threat in the mid-1970s. US hawks insisted that these estimates were low-balled (because the CIA was just a bunch of liberals). They established "Team B" to review the existing intelligence and report. Well, Team B figured out that the CIA had massively understated the size of the Soviet threat. President Reagan used this Team B intelligence to justify the massive US military build-up in the 1980s as a response to this massive Soviet arms build-up from the 1970s.

After the fall of the USSR, western analysts were able to access the Soviet archives. Turns out that the CIA estimates of the Soviet military threat in the 1970s were laughably innacurate and massively overstated the Soviet military threat. Team B's assessment bear no resemblance to reality - they just made shit up.

Once you are familiar with stories like this one, it becomes impossible to have any respect at all for the US intelligence agencies.

[Americano]

Those of us who are familiar with "Team B" from the 1970s are not shocked.

CIA offered analysis of the size of the Soviet military threat in the mid-1970s. US hawks insisted that these estimates were low-balled (because the CIA was just a bunch of liberals). They established "Team B" to review the existing intelligence and report. Well, Team B figured out that the CIA had massively understated the size of the Soviet threat. President Reagan used this Team B intelligence to justify the massive US military build-up in the 1980s as a response to this massive Soviet arms build-up from the 1970s.

After the fall of the USSR, western analysts were able to access the Soviet archives. Turns out that the CIA estimates of the Soviet military threat in the 1970s were laughably innacurate and massively overstated the Soviet military threat. Team B's assessment bear no resemblance to reality - they just made shit up.

Once you are familiar with stories like this one, it becomes impossible to have any respect at all for the US intelligence agencies.

US intelligence used to rationalize invading Iraq still has be at the top of the list for deliberate political misinformation servicing MIC requirements.

[Michael]

US intelligence used to rationalize invading Iraq still has be at the top of the list for deliberate political misinformation servicing MIC requirements.

Any different than the US manufactured Gulf of Tonkin incident?

That's a classic case of deliberate political misinformation for the purpose of creating a war - pretty much identical to the deliberate political misinformation games played for the purpose of creating war in Iraq.

Some things never change.

[Americano]

Any different than the US manufactured Gulf of Tonkin incident?

No. I did consider the shift from ideological threat (communism) to personal fear WMD threat significant. Same tune, different lyrics.

That's a classic case of deliberate political misinformation for the purpose of creating a war - pretty much identical to the deliberate political misinformation games played for the purpose of creating war in Iraq.

Some things never change.

What can I say? The US is a violent self-serving country and a declining world power going broke. Desperate people do desperate things in their quests to maintain status-quo.

[Michael]

The Root of all Fears

Why is Israel so afraid of Iranian Nukes?

Summary:

Contrary to popular belief, Israel is not afraid of a nuclear attack by Iran or Hezbollah; rather, it fears losing its nuclear monopoly in the region and the image of invincibility that comes with it.

Source (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65692/ariel-ilan-roth/the-root-of-all-fears)

Indeed. What more can I say?

[Non Sequitur]

I am of the opinion that Iran will get nukes no matter really what we try and do. Given that assumption, I think the US course of action should be to follow a MAD policy. The US sends the message to the Iranians that, while we would prefer you not having nuclear capabilities and will offer a variety of incentives to not get them, we will not use a military strike. In fact, we will largely ignore you. However, if we link your nuclear capabilities to a nuclear attack upon the US or any US ally we will destroy you. It's simple and clear.

[Michael]

I am of the opinion that Iran will get nukes no matter really what we try and do. Given that assumption, I think the US course of action should be to follow a MAD policy. The US sends the message to the Iranians that, while we would prefer you not having nuclear capabilities and will offer a variety of incentives to not get them, we will not use a military strike. In fact, we will largely ignore you. However, if we link your nuclear capabilities to a nuclear attack upon the US or any US ally we will destroy you. It's simple and clear.
That's rational and reasonable.

Unfortunately, rational and reasonable policies can't be used to justify another $100 billion in defense spending so therefore it is off the table. Only defense policies that augur significant increases in defense spending are apparently permissible.

Policies that foster fear and uncertainty, that's what the defense industry likes best. And since the defense industry owns Congress, that's what America gets (7/24/365) - with the 'liberal' media cheering every step of the way. :shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

That's rational and reasonable.

Unfortunately, rational and reasonable policies can't be used to justify another $100 billion in defense spending so therefore it is off the table. Only defense policies that augur significant increases in defense spending are apparently permissible.

Policies that foster fear and uncertainty, that's what the defense industry likes best. And since the defense industry owns Congress, that's what America gets (7/24/365) - with the 'liberal' media cheering every step of the way. :shrug:

I think defense spending goes beyond the arguments of a partisan media. Frankly, America is more Hawkish than most of the planet. That combined with the "military-industrial complex" produces a pretty good threat to liberty.

[Americano]

I think defense spending goes beyond the arguments of a partisan media. Frankly, America is more Hawkish than most of the planet. That combined with the "military-industrial complex" produces a pretty good threat to liberty.

America is more hawkish than the rest of the planet put together. The MIC owning congress and the media makes that position sustainable.

[Michael]

I think defense spending goes beyond the arguments of a partisan media. Frankly, America is more Hawkish than most of the planet. That combined with the "military-industrial complex" produces a pretty good threat to liberty.
Do you think Americans hawkish because their government and media are owned by the MIC and have thus been pushing hawkish propaganda nonstop for decades and conspiring to prevent discussion of any issue except in hawkish terms?

Or are American's just plain hawkish by nature and the government/media just reflects this?

(I think the evidence on this issue is overwhelmingly the former, though everyone likes to pretend it is the latter)

[andrewl]

Do you think Americans hawkish because their government and media are owned by the MIC and have thus been pushing hawkish propaganda nonstop for decades and conspiring to prevent discussion of any issue except in hawkish terms?

Or are American's just plain hawkish by nature and the government/media just reflects this?

(I think the evidence on this issue is overwhelmingly the former, though everyone likes to pretend it is the latter)

Or one could say that violence and war are addictive and that the MIC propaganda machine created a hawkish american culture where there was not one before.

Andrew

[Americano]

Do you think Americans hawkish because their government and media are owned by the MIC and have thus been pushing hawkish propaganda nonstop for decades and conspiring to prevent discussion of any issue except in hawkish terms?

Or are American's just plain hawkish by nature and the government/media just reflects this?

(I think the evidence on this issue is overwhelmingly the former, though everyone likes to pretend it is the latter)

The US became a country using violence. Respect of warriors termed military by the general public is overwhelmingly popular. Vietnam aside, that public now provides hero welcomes for warriors returning from failed conquests without plunder regardless of the destruction, deaths and oppression they created or US public cost.

On most high-traffic public forums discussing illegal immigration into the US and even moderates become hawkish. The MIC knew the market.

[Non Sequitur]

Do you think Americans hawkish because their government and media are owned by the MIC and have thus been pushing hawkish propaganda nonstop for decades and conspiring to prevent discussion of any issue except in hawkish terms?

Or are American's just plain hawkish by nature and the government/media just reflects this?

(I think the evidence on this issue is overwhelmingly the former, though everyone likes to pretend it is the latter)

I wouldn't say we are hawkish by nature, but by a combination of media and bad history. There are a variety of events in our history that make us proud of our military might. What I am thinking of most at the moment is FDR's "arsenal for democracy" slogan which most people learn at some point in school or hear at another time. That is a powerful image that sticks with you. When it sticks with you, and you forget the context, it helps contribute to a hawkish thought process. There are other school images and history lessons, but that is the one that comes immediately to mind.

There is other contributors too though. Yes the media has something to do with it, but also there are a lot of jobs and livelihoods at stack in the MIC. Families depend on it.

[Michael]

...What I am thinking of most at the moment is FDR's "arsenal for democracy" slogan which most people learn at some point in school or hear at another time. That is a powerful image that sticks with you. When it sticks with you, and you forget the context, it helps contribute to a hawkish thought process. There are other school images and history lessons, but that is the one that comes immediately to mind.

Yes, that's a very good point. That 'meme' that FDR planted really has taken deep root in US political culture.

Unfortunately, it was really only true during WW2. Ever since then, the US has only been the 'arsenel for US capitalism' (and often as not, the US has been 'the arsenal of dictatorships' in opposition to democracy).

[Zarquon]

Yes, that's a very good point. That 'meme' that FDR planted really has taken deep root in US political culture.

Unfortunately, it was really only true during WW2. Ever since then, the US has only been the 'arsenel for US capitalism' (and often as not, the US has been 'the arsenal of dictatorships' in opposition to democracy).
America is also responsible for pushing back secular nationalism and causing (and sometimes actively facilitating) religionist-parochial movements to take hold.

[Non Sequitur]

Yes, that's a very good point. That 'meme' that FDR planted really has taken deep root in US political culture.

Unfortunately, it was really only true during WW2. Ever since then, the US has only been the 'arsenel for US capitalism' (and often as not, the US has been 'the arsenal of dictatorships' in opposition to democracy).

Capitalism and Democracy are almost the same thing in the American vocabulary. While I prefer both systems, I get irritated when they are used as synonyms.

[Americano]

America is also responsible for pushing back secular nationalism and causing (and sometimes actively facilitating) religionist-parochial movements to take hold.

Such as Bush43's birth control aid to Africa of which 80% of the funding had to be spent on abstinence education by US fundamentalist missionaries in Africa?

[Michael]

Capitalism and Democracy are almost the same thing in the American vocabulary. While I prefer both systems, I get irritated when they are used as synonyms.

Actually, I don't consider "democracy" to be a core American cultural value at all (and it never has been). It seems that it is the one piece that never fits into any other prevailing US cultural motif.

Americans seem to just pay lip service (if at all) to democracy and then go about demanding policies that are anti-democratic.

Heck the US Congress and Electoral College were designed specifically to thwart democratic majorities. That's the US government that I see. It is very consistent on this point of policy. And any discussion of serious politics with American rightwingers or American leftwingers is really depressing as both sides are equally undemocratic in approach to all questions of public policy.

[Non Sequitur]

Actually, I don't consider "democracy" to be a core American cultural value at all (and it never has been). It seems that it is the one piece that never fits into any other prevailing US cultural motif.

Americans seem to just pay lip service (if at all) to democracy and then go about demanding policies that are anti-democratic.

Heck the US Congress and Electoral College were designed specifically to thwart democratic majorities. That's the US government that I see. It is very consistent on this point of policy. And any discussion of serious politics with American rightwingers or American leftwingers is really depressing as both sides are equally undemocratic in approach to all questions of public policy.

Depends on what we are talking about. In the popular mindset, America=democracy. It's hard to explain to people that Constitutionally our government is rigged against it and that historically we are a republic. Talk to the average person on the streets and we are a democracy.

Actually, this is the source of my great fear of populism at the moment. The entire American system was written the thwart democracy and this populist movement is an example of all that the writers of the Constitution feared.

[Michael]

Depends on what we are talking about. In the popular mindset, America=democracy. It's hard to explain to people that Constitutionally our government is rigged against it and that historically we are a republic. Talk to the average person on the streets and we are a democracy.

Actually, this is the source of my great fear of populism at the moment. The entire American system was written the thwart democracy and this populist movement is an example of all that the writers of the Constitution feared.
I agree completely. Most people just assume that America=democracy. Thus, if this is America, this must be democracy. As such, democracy is essentially 'content-free' (and mostly non-existent).

This formula is very useful for the fascists because they will call it democracy and most American's won't notice the difference.

Indeed, elections and casting ballots for your representative in Congress isn't democratic at all, yet most people consider this to be the complete definition of democracy. Chalk another one up for the fascists. They are winning.

[Michael]

Looks like Turkey, Brazil and Iran have signed a nuclear agreement deal.

I'm trying to find a good link that provides the info...

Apparently this involves Iran trading low-quality enriched uranium in return for high-quality enriched uranium that can be used for medical research and the production of medical isotopes.

On the surface, this deal appears to address Western concerns about Iranian nukes.

It will be interesting to see western reactions to this.

[Americano]

Looks like Turkey, Brazil and Iran have signed a nuclear agreement deal.

I'm trying to find a good link that provides the info...

Apparently this involves Iran trading low-quality enriched uranium in return for high-quality enriched uranium that can be used for medical research and the production of medical isotopes.

On the surface, this deal appears to address Western concerns about Iranian nukes.

It will be interesting to see western reactions to this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/world/20sanctions.html

It looks like the US (Clinton) spoke too quickly about having UN security council agreement on additional sanctions for Iran. With the Turkey/Brazil/Iran agreement now in place Russia is already backpedaling and China silent about the additional sanctions.

Considering the significant amount of trade volume between Iran, China, Russia, Turkey, Brazil and many European countries, which is rapidly increasing with both Chinese and Russian economic development in Iran, in my opinion the US is going to have to manufacture reasoning or let Israel start yet another war to oppose Iranian nuclear development beyond lip service.

[Michael]

Heck, I'm just pleased to see some independent diplomacy going on out there - Turkey and Brazil teaming up to do a deal is impressive and darn good news - without any of the 'western powers' involved. Looks good on them. :thumbsup:

Indeed, I can't think of two countries on this planet that I'd rather see playing a larger diplomatic role in world affairs.

The 'western nations' have been too dominant for too long - they seem stuck in old 20th century conflict-mentality. Our world is changing - one has to adapt or stagnate. I'm okay with the West losing its monopoly dominance of the planet, I'm not okay with the West losing its ability to adapt!

[Americano]

Heck, I'm just pleased to see some independent diplomacy going on out there - Turkey and Brazil teaming up to do a deal is impressive and darn good news - without any of the 'western powers' involved. Looks good on them. :thumbsup:

Indeed, I can't think of two countries on this planet that I'd rather see playing a larger diplomatic role in world affairs.

The 'western nations' have been too dominant for too long - they seem stuck in old 20th century conflict-mentality. Our world is changing - one has to adapt or stagnate. I'm okay with the West losing its monopoly dominance of the planet, I'm not okay with the West losing its ability to adapt!

There is some recent US and Turkey political snubbing history. Turkey refused US military build-up for the Iraq fiasco within its borders (and banned hot pursuit into Turkey). The US later retaliated with recognizing the Armenian Massacre (250 people) by the Ottoman Empire in bowing to politically influential Armenians in California.

The US does have difficulties in adapting to geopolitical change and I'm sure the US State Department is at this moment attempting to devise retaliation against Brazil and Turkey for their support of Iran. While China, Russia and those European nations dependent on Iranian gas/oil smile at the results of of the new Iranian alliance.

[MeMyselfAndI]

US must understand that soon it will not be THE SUPERPOWER anymore. The world is changing, very much so. There are going to be new forces in the world coming out in the next decade.

[Michael]

US must understand that soon it will not be THE SUPERPOWER anymore. The world is changing, very much so. There are going to be new forces in the world coming out in the next decade.

The US is a superpower and will remain so for some time to come. I don't see that changing at all.

What I do see changing is the monopoly on global political authority that the US believed they had because of this.

The US may not have a direct peer competitor in the military arena, but they do have dozens of 2nd-string powers that don't feel they need US leadership.

That's a failure of US leadership and a failure of US politics.

I think this episode demonstrates that in the 21st century, people will be looking to these new actors for leadership (China, India, Brazil and Turkey). The US created a world leadership vacuum with its incompetence, arrogance and beligerance. Others are moving to fill that void.

[Americano]

The US is a superpower and will remain so for some time to come. I don't see that changing at all.

What I do see changing is the monopoly on global political authority that the US believed they had because of this.

The US may not have a direct peer competitor in the military arena, but they do have dozens of 2nd-string powers that don't feel they need US leadership.

That's a failure of US leadership and a failure of US politics.

I think this episode demonstrates that in the 21st century, people will be looking to these new actors for leadership (China, India, Brazil and Turkey). The US created a world leadership vacuum with its incompetence, arrogance and beligerance. Others are moving to fill that void.

Especially China. Their geopolitical advances have all been based on capital investment, which is far more prudent and effective than excruciatingly expensive military bloat.

[Michael]

Especially China. Their geopolitical advances have all been based on capital investment, which is far more prudent and effective than excruciatingly expensive military bloat.

True, both Britain and USA built much of their geopolitical advances on capital investment long before they became militarily bloated.

Britain advanced in the 18th and 19th century, but became militarily bloated building Dreadnoughts in the 1905-1914 period. US advanced in the 19th and first half of the 20th on capital investment, and then became militarily bloated in the second half of the 20th century.

When the only powerful tool you have is an army, everything looks like a battlefield.

[Michael]

Here is a link to a report of the Oxford Research Group's study of the potential outcome of any US/Israeli attack on Iran. It doesn't say anything new that hasn't been on the table for a dozen years. Bottom line is that any US or Israeli attack is sure to cause big trouble and likely will lead to increased war/instability in the Middle East for years to come - and won't eliminate any Iranian nuclear weapons development to boot.

In other words, any US or Israeli attack (same difference since any Israeli attack can only be undertaken will full US permission and support) is a lose-lose proposition for US and Israeli security interests. Unfortunately, as we saw with Iraq, the USA is sometimes ready and more than willing to engage in military operations that have the goal of decreasing US security, benefiting enemy regimes and increasing political instability generally, so we can't depend on US self-interest to avoid causing massive harm to itself and its own interests.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/Iran%20Report%202010_0.pdf

Its in [fucking] PDF format which means I can't exerpt anything from it and its a pain to read.

(whatever happened to PDF acrobat format? It used to be so wonderfully useful now it is mind-bogglingly bloated and annoying as it now does everything except wash dishes and serve as a simple document format - Adobe has apparently taken over Microsoft's mantle for making the most bloated and bug-ridden software out there - I well remember when Acrobat was a download under 100kb - that was back when Acrobat was useful - now it is now about 27MB and loaded with bugs).