sprocket

Someone please tell me... I hear "conservative" pundits like Hannity (if you can really even call them conservative) saying the greatest threat to this nation is terrorism and Iran going nuclear and selling bombs to terrorists.

But what really would be in it for Iran if they manage to get nuclear weapons, and let a couple slip into terrorists hands to blow up parts of israel or the united states?

Why on earth should we be afraid of this at all? What do you think would happen to Iran at the hands of the US if they got nuclear weapons and one happened to go off in the US or Israel? I would guess, that Iran would become the worlds largest radioactive parking lot before any of us realized what happened. And I bet Americans would be more united than ever, in using the most extreme forms retaliation possible.. I just dont get it.. why should I be scared?

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

ratbastid

Well, I think I can explain the reasoning, even though I don't agree with it.

See, there's this new notion called "Asymmetrical Warfare". Basically, the idea is that dirty brown people in huts have less to lose than us, with our big houses we can't pay for and our $3.50 gasoline. So one nuke dropped in New York City hurts us more than a dozen nukes carpeting their entire country. So there's nothing stopping them from nuking New York City.

Booga-booga Asymetrical Warfare, be scared, be scared! Only a Republican can save you from this (fictional) boogie man!

It's a fundamentally racist idea that teeters on the shaky foundation that because we value our lives more than we value theirs, therefore our lives are more valuable objectively than theirs, and they are therefore unsusceptible to notions like Mutually Assured Destruction (another insane doctrine, but there you have it).

It's a moot point--Iran has no nukes, has had no nuke program since 2003, and couldn't possibly develop nukes before 2015, even if they were interested in doing so and if they started today.

Elphaba

Sprocket, I have asked myself these questions as well. I view Iran, even with a nuclear weapon, far less of a threat to the interests of the US than Korea or Pakistan. The country that I believe deserves far more of our attention and concern is Russia. Bush has provoked the Bear to the point that we are on the precipice of a new cold war.

Painting Iran a threat has been done for economic interests only. The US administration uses the fear of a nuclear bomb to gain support for another false war for the control of oil.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

ottopilot

edit

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Bossnass

Not to threadjack, but "Asymmetrical Warfare" isn't a new notion. I first learned about it from a book about the Boer War which was published in the 60s. I don't recall the title, it was at least 5 years ago.

It isn't by definition a scare tactic topic, even if it may be used as such by certain parties right now. It is a real applicable principle. Israel-Palestine is the standard example. Suicide bombers vs missiles, Israeli forces only allowing Palestinians with a wife and children inside the wall to work because they are the ones with something to loose and are less likely to be 'attackers'.

Elphaba

Otto, similar beliefs exist in the book of Revelations. It could also be said that Christians of that belief are also eagerly awaiting the "Rapture".

If a better argument against the combination of Church and State can be made, both the US and Iran are examples of what should be constitutionally avoided.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

sprocket

Thats for that post Otto... very informative. I dont really have enough understanding of history/culture of the middle east and islam to know what to believe yet.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

roachboy

i dont think otto's post is a good entrypoint for thinking terribly coherently about islam.
to paraphrase elphaba--it's like reading the book of revelations to understand europe, or nostradamus to understand globalizing capitalism.

to answer the op: there would be nothing in the scenario you outline for iran.
that is why it is reasonable to assume that the scenario, while potentially an issue--in the sense that assume we move through a manifold of possibilities or potentials and only realize a few of them in the actual world--which can be an amusing parlorgame way of thinking about how human beings move through time, if you dont mind giving up the idea that we actually create anything---confusing it with a plausible scenario is the stuff of hysteria building, war marketing, the kind of nonsense that the bush administration (and many other weak-minded but power-obsessed regimes) use to legitimate themselves.

the bigger question--why are nuclear weapons necessary, why dont we--you know, human beings in general--decide that they are unnecessary and dismantle them--is separate. nuclear weapon systems are self-evidently cause for concern. that they exist is cause for concern. that they can be used is cause for concern. that they have been discussed not only as an option, but as a first strike option, by the bush administration--which actually controls really existing nuclear weapons, and a shit=ton of them--is cause for concern.

and strangely, because the americans actually have such weapons, and the iranians do not, it seems that if you want to panic about something, you'd be better off panicking about that than about imaginary scenarios concerning iran----if you're really worried about nuclear weapons, of course.

you might just want a reason to worry about iran.

choose your poison, i guess.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Skutch

I dont recall the Bush Administration saying it would use nukes against anyone. I don't recall anyone in the Bush Administration leading choruses of Death to Iran. At this point and time in the 21st century, I would be much more concerned with a state-sponsored, radically religious organization using nukes against a civilian population than I would such an attack from a so-called leading nation. I agree that nuclear weapons in and of themselves are an abomination. That the US and other nations in the West and Far East have them doesn't, in my opinion, legitimate Iran having them.

roachboy

there was a proposal floated a couple-three years ago by the administration in the context of an overall review of general defense department policies that argued that the u.s.reserved to itself the right to use nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis. i do not know the fate of that proposal.

as for the rest of the post above: i dont understand how you twisted around anything i said to imply anything remotely like a rationale for a non-existent iranian nuclear weapons program.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Plan9

Hmm, I feel that touting nuclear weapon use on a first strike basis is merely chained junkyard dog posturing by the UN / US. Nobody would do that... right? Right? Okay, I'll play make-believe.

I do worry about nuclear devices made by other countries (Iraq, N. Korea) falling into the hands (either by sale or by theft) of deviant groups without countries with which to concern themselves. The former Soviet Union has plenty of said devices floating around. What is to be done? We can't police the world despite our best efforts to deploy our asses everyone.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Skutch

I've never agreed with anyone maintaining a "right" to a first strike rationale. A right given by whom? If someone wants to strike out aggressively, they'll have to deal with the political fallout, as the US currently is. With regard to nuking civilian populations: a nuclear America doesn't concern me, a nuclear India doesn't concern me, a nuclear Germany doesn't concern me. In this particular regard, a nuclear Iran concerns me.

roachboy

generally, i find it better to be concerned about situations involving actually existing weapons systems in the hands of governments---like, say, that of pakistan---or more distantly, were i to feel for some reason that generating more anxiety was fun---israel even---than i find being concerned about non-existent nuclear weapons in the hands of governments.

o don't know--worry about weapons systems and other such that do not exist is just less interesting, somehow.
call me cynical that way.

but hey, skutch, if worrying about non-existent weapons systems floats your boat, then do go ahead and worry.
i'd be the last person to stand in the way of another's auto-stimulation.
it just doesn't interest me.

but if you want to find an in-between space, then maybe worrying about the circulation of technologies and materials that are required for the proliferation of nuclear weapons systems, at least some of which are not within the control of states (which explains how pakistan for example, got the actually existing capabilities in the first bloody place) might be something we could agree on.
that is a problem, one that should be stopped, and stopped entirely, and that if the system of nation-states cannot figure out a way to subordinate the fun and excitement of profit generation, then maybe some higher-order institutions are required to stop it.

but this gets genuinely worrisome, so i understand why you might prefer to worry about non-existent nuclear weapons systems in the hands of the official bogeyman of the moment--its a politically motivated parlor game, an exercise.
i suspect--but do not know--that this follows from a political sympathy with the present administration.
fear and trembling seems a device they deploy in order to help folk overlook their disengenousness and incompetence.
if that's your preference, then have fun with it.

but it doesn't interest me.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Plan9

Can we have this discussion 10 years from now and get the same answers?

That is what I'd like to know.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

roachboy

if you know someone to call in order to find out the answer to that, let me know too, crompsin.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sprocket

But why? Why does a nuclear Iran concern you? America has nuclear weapons numbering in the six figures. We could drop a bomb on every city in Iran, and not put a dent in our arsenal.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

joshbaumgartner

That is interesting. The primary target of the world's nuclear arsenals, including the United States, Russia, et al, is civilians.

I fail to see how it is any more or less likely that Iran would use its nuclear weapon, if it were to acquire one, against civilians than it would be for any other member of the nuclear club.

Developing, building, deploying, and maintaining the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon is a daunting and massive undertaking for any nation. The very size of the task means that if for some reason you do achieve that level, you are big enough to be a target for consequences. All societies have people willing to die for what they are convinced is the greater good. Some are even willing to commit suicide for it. But leaders, and more importantly, governments with enough size and power to build a nuke, are not suicidal.

The use of a single nuclear weapon by Iran as a city attack, on the battlefield, or through terrorists would be be met by the immediate nuclear extermination of its leadership, its military, its infrastructure, and most likely, its civilization.

The United States is in fact leading the charge in developing a way to have a "usable" nuclear capability. It is the leader in developing more precise limited yield weapons that presumably would be able to be used without crossing the threshold of triggering MAD. It is the leader also in developing a shield against the deterrent of foreign arsenals, theoretically allowing the United States to launch a nuclear attack without suffering a debilitating counter-strike, should they ever get the system to work right. Iran will not be getting the ability to defend against the US or even Israeli arsenals, and a 'surgical' nuclear strike capability (one which would not trigger MAD) is still questionable for the US, and is not something Iran will be able to develop.

Thus, I find it curious that Iran is seen as the bigger threat to actually use its nuclear weapons, were it to ever get any.