irateplatypus

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040925/D85ARA280.html

this can't be good for middle east stability. iran has drawn a lot of international attention about recent developments in their nuclear program. it appears that should they ever actually develop a nuclear weapon, they have a system that can deliver it to europe and israel. it appears that even a pre-emptive strike on nuclear facilities like the one israel carried out against iraq decades ago has a check against it. iran would now be able to counter a surgical attack without moving its manned conventional forces across international boundaries as well as retaliate on a moment's notice.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

jb2000

No, it is not good for Middle East stability in the least.

The effort to convince Iran to not pursue strategic enhancement of its military is unfortunately all but a lost cause. Given the current world situation, it is nearly impossible to convince Iran that she is not in grave danger of being attacked by a foreign country. Any assurances of security from the US (the most likely agressor at the moment) will fall on deaf ears, given the willingness of the US to go back on its word whenever it feels the need. So thus, the conservative Iranian leadership feels that the only buffer it has against attack is a military capacity to inflict deterrance on potential agressors. Given the obvious superiority of US conventional military forces, un-conventional methods, from nuclear programs to terrorist connections become more appealing to the regime.

So what tools do we have as the United States to prevent the creation of another nuclear power?

Dragonlich

jb2000, your reasoning sounds realistic, but you fail to take into account the factor Time. It takes years to design, build and test long-range missiles. Therefore, these missiles were planned years ago, before Bush got into power, and before this whole "axis of evil" thing. And, I might add, before the US had shown it was willing to go back on it's word (whatever that may mean to you).

I suspect Iran wants nukes and ICBMs to put pressure on Israel, and to try and make sure Israel doesn't use *it's* nukes in a future conflict. It is my firm believe that Iran wants to attack Israel at a future date, and these missiles will come in handy. If they ever get a missile capable of reaching the US, they'll probably use that to persuade them to stay out of the conflict.

cthulu23

Israel definitely has nukes, so that'll deter Iran from invading unless they are particularly insane. It's more likely that Iran wants nukes for the same reason that other nations want them....they feel like this will guarantee their seat at the table of nations that must be respected, as well as ensuring their border security. Border security is probably increasingly important to them given the Bush doctrine and the "Axis of Evil" saber rattling. One unfortunate side-effect of the Bush doctrine is that it encourages nuclear proliferation in targeted countries as nukes may be the only means of defending against American military might.

Ustwo

Yea I'm sure North Korea and Iran were just happy peacefull countries before Bush showed up. Oh wait did Korea start on their nuke program BEFORE Bush took office? Oh yea.... Did Iran? Oh yea....

Also you might want to ask yourself if 'saber rattling' is a good term to use. I think there has been very little rattling and a whole lot of slashing.

The concept that somehow the 'Bush Doctrine' makes these petty dictatorships go from peace loving despots to world dangers is laughable. The only saber rattling is on their part as they see a big gaping hole at the table where Saddam was and they wonder if their pathetic governments are next.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

cthulu23

Your points would be valid if I actually wrote any of those words that you're trying to put into my mouth. I never said that the Bush doctrine created any nuke programs or that it transformed any nations overnight. Can't we admit that the Bush doctrine could possibly have some side-effects that might not be 100% positive?

Edit: that's a pretty interesting sig, Ustwo. Too bad it's not an actual Kerry quote.

See http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm. the correction appears at the top of the page over the erroneous quote.

irateplatypus

yeah, cthulu23... i'm going to have to pile-on because that just doesn't hold up. if we're hearing about strategic missiles and nuclear developments now you have to know that those programs have been in the works for years and years. the idea that they started these programs in response to a U.S. policy in the established in the last 3-4 years is very unrealistic. it seems like some people can't wait to blame Bush for all the world's ills, plausibility be damned.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

cthulu23

You might want to read my reply to Ustwo directly over your last post. I wasn't blaming Bush for the weapons programs, I was just mentioning a possible negative side to the Bush doctrine. Can you deny that what I said is a possibility? Or you guys could go on putting words in my mouth if that suits you.

Dragonlich

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Bush doctrine doesn't make countries develop nukes (that takes too long), but it might certainly encourage countries to increase the speed of their development in order to prevent any attacks. If so, I agree.

In the case of Iran and North-Korea, I doubt Bush is a very large factor, though. It's probably just an excuse - they've been developing them for years now (duh!), and wanted them anyway. Both countries are sworn enemies of the US, and what would be better than blaming the US...

Of course, if John Kerry comes to power, starts a massive world-wide peace movement, we'll see whether Iran and NK will stop developing nukes; somehow, I doubt that'll happen.

As another example, I'd like to point at Libya. Even though Bush doesn't like them one bit, they're not officially part of the axis of evil, and they stopped development of their nukes. Why are they different??? I'd say it's because Libya doesn't have any direct enemies, and doesn't *need* nukes.

cthulu23

Dragonlich,

That's exactly what I mean. Thinking along those same lines, the chances of N. Korea and Iran standing down their programs after being included in the "Axis of Evil" and being threatened with invasion are much lessened (although it may not have been a very high chance anyway). This is an important point to consider when talking about non-proliferation issues.

pedro padilla

why is it so goddam impossible to bring up any valid discussion of real threats to peace and security on a purely nonpartisan basis without an immediate and completely paranoid and irrational defense of Bush and co.
Seems like anyone simply stating the obvious and well founded fears of us all is instantly anti-bush. Well, yeah. Stupid man shoulda been looking at the real threats facing the world today. What we got was a heavily media manipulated fabrication of a non existent threat. It was a personal grudge payback on about a third grade mentality. Meanwhile the nut jobs with the actual means and unwatched ways to really fuck us up just cruised along.
It´s becoming pretty obvious that this recent "train accident" in N. Korea with mushroom cloud and all is getting covered up quick. They have nukes and missiles to deliver em. Shit, They just told the entire world if we fuck with them Japan will become a nuclear sea of hell. This guy is a true psycho and has happily spent the entire 4 years of Bush building up his war chest.
Iran? Yeah, for sure they´re chasin the nuke option. They´ve just seen what happens to compliant countries in the region. Yes, COMPLIANT. Why the hell do the U.S. and Israel have the exclusive right to determine who can or cannot defend themselves, Yes, defend. Because for the life of me I can´t see Iran making any kind of suicidal act of agression on a neighboring country. I can sure as hell see taking any possible precautions when faced with the absolute fanaticism and unchecked illegal and criminal history of their lying, WMD bearing, thieving neighbors.
Remember when Saddam told the world he didn´t have any WMD´s and him and Bush should just punch it out one on one? Maybe the most intelligent solution laid on the table. But fearless GW has never fought his own fight in his life. Saddam woulda decked him.

powerclown

Iran, sweet Iran,
What will you do next?
You foam at the mouth,
You leave us perplexed.

Why so many missiles,
What the heck's with the nukes?
Please prove us all wrong,
That you're really not kooks.

Oh Mighty U.N.,
Great defender of hope,
The world looks to you waiting,
Will you say once again...'Nope'?

Israel awaken!
Supreme bird of rage.
Reverse this calamity,
Bomb reactors to Stone Age.

Happy Yom Kippur!

pedro padilla

israel, bitter israel,
where will you draw the line?
apartheid was a tea party,
compared to what you have in mind.

why so much repression?
and that new berlin style wall?
you´ll never be content,
until you have it all.

oh mighty USA
just look the other way.
the rest of the world´s against us,
but fuck em anyway.

israel is untouchable.
remember the holocaust?
justifies the crimes against humanity
and blames it on the past.

happy ramadan camel jockeys,
this land is ours.

the hotter the flames, the faster you fry.

irateplatypus

your daily dose of alliteration:

pretty partisan poetry perplexes platypus

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

jb2000

To say that attempts by Iran, NK, etc to develop nuclear weapons merely because of the Bush Doctrine would of course be very silly. That was not at all my intention. Nations seek nukes for a variety of reasons. Regardless, the Bush Doctrine has had a negative effect on non-proliferation efforts. Actually, I should say that it is more han the Bush Doctrine, but the entire Bush strategy of opposing diplomatic efforts to limit nuclear weapons (NTB, ABM, etc.) while simultaneously giving nations increased reason to develop these weapons.

Indeed, when it comes to Iran, you are very correct to cite Israel as a driving factor in nuclear development. You are also very correct that missiles are long-term development items, just like the nuclear warheads htey may one day carry. They aren't knee-jerk reactions to current events.

However, I contend that we still need to counter these developments, and just because non-proliferation, just like proliferation, is not an over-night activity, we should not abandon it.

Iran won't have a missile to attack US soil with anytime in the foreseeable future, barring some bizarre developments. They do however, have the capacity to sstrike the US, both by attacking our assets and our allies. We will wax them in a military conflict, but will we be willing to withstand neclear attacks on our forces and our allies to do so? If not, then they have an effective deterrant without being able to strike US soil.

Regardless, at this point, what is the most effective path towards non-proliferation when dealing with powers such as Iran?

jb2000

Pile on what, exactly, Irate? Did anybody here say that Bush actions STARTED these programs, or that they are merely a response to his actions?

No, no, no, and no. I've re-read my response, and that of Cthulu, and I think we were both VERY clear that these programs may not have started under Bush, but that the Bush strategy has made combatting them more difficult. My first post doesn't even refer to Bush, but cites US history in general.

This isn't a flame, and I don't want you to take this wrong, but please give us some credit here, we aren't idiots and we are aware that the world wasn't some lovey-dovey,-let's-hold-hands-and-sing-songs kind of place before Bush. Your (not just you Irate, but others) attempts to paint our arguments as something they aren't is completely disingenuous and I don't appreciate it in the least.

I have been heavily involved in studying foreign affairs and military science since I have been able to vote. I'm under no illusions about the existance of numerous nuclear programs during the 1990s. Heck, Pak and India tested before Bush took office, didn't they? Noone here is eager to blame Bush for these things. But the fact is they were there when he took office, and I do hold him to blame for not being more effective at tackling them. Since he has taken office, we have seen NK restart her program, shelved near the end of Clinton's term, and seen China announce an unprecedented enhancement of her nuclear force. Both of these events can be directly linked to actions of the Bush Administration. North Korea because Bush allowed the carefully negotiated situation by Clinton to fall apart because he didn't want to maintain shipments to NK, and China as a direct reaction to the Bush decision to go live with a NMD system. We can arue over whether either or both of these was a good choice, but the fact is they did make non-proliferation more difficult.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about how we can achieve non-proliferation, then please let's do, but please let's not be dog-piling on things people said, especially when they DIDN'T SAY THEM!

irateplatypus

good post jb.

though bush doctrine may not stop proliferation... i'm not sure that we have found an effective way to curb it at all. clinton seemed to be more in favor of diplomatic channels, yet there is a clear failure on his part to sate NK's desire for a nuke. too often i think "diplomatic efforts" translates into concessions. not always, but certainly often. if we start giving nations like iran and NK economic breaks and/or relieve pressure in exchange for a supposed reduction in nuclear activities... then we are only encouraging other nations to start their own programs so they can receive he same treatment.

i think a hard-line (and perhaps military) response is the only real workable solution. if we can assure any country that develops nukes that they are going to get harsh economic and military treatment from the U.S. that will do more than anything else to curb development. i think we've either got to find a standard and put our national credibility on the line to stick to it, or we've got to accept that the Irans and the NKs of the world will get nukes. anything in between seems to be folly.

edit: within the context of the discussion cthulu's post can very well be interpreted to mean what some of the other poster's understood it to mean. i don't mean to insult you, but comments like those (or how we understood them originally) are quite commonplace... i've seen more juvenile things posted about bush before. i really think you're taking it too hard. either way, we're all clear on what you mean now... so let's move on.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Stompy

The most interesting thing is that even though you brought this up and proved the quote was taken out of context, no one will ever acknowledge you said it.

It will be swept under the rug never to be spoken of again, or the person with the wrong quote will just pretend like they never saw it even though they did

__________________
I love lamp.

jb2000

Irate, I did take it too hard, point taken.

As for the progress of non-proliferation, I wouldn't expect Bush or any president to single-handedly solve the problem during one term. What I do expect is continued steps towards that ultimate goal, and at the very least a maintnance of the tenuous situation. Unfortunately, the situation is such that Bush indeed done just that, take a step backwards. I'm not saying he wanted to, or that he didn't think he was doing the right thing, but the end result was negative progress for non-proliferation. There have been a series of events that have led to this conclusion.

1) North Korea: Clinton had not reached a final solution in Korea, but neither had any President. What he did achieve was a halting of the NK nuclear program. There was still development of delivery systems, and the reactors had not been destroyed, but it was a start. Negotiations were underway for delivery of a replacement reactor that would allow destruction of the existing ones, but in the meantime, existing reactors were under full observation by IAEA. The carrot was food and energy shipments to the starving nation. Enter Bush. Unhappy with shipping these items and having to build (pay for) the new reactor, he took a harder line. Result was NK dismantling of IAEA observation, restart of the reactor and full progress resumed on the nuclear program. This may have happened under Gore if certain events had happened, but it didn't. It happened under Bush, and they have to take responsibility for the failure.

2) NMD: Clinton's continuance of NMD research was an error, as it turns out. His 'open options' plan was to not make a full deployment of NMD, but instead keep it on the back burner if needed. When Bush got in he of course took it and put it on the front burner (fulfilling a campaign promise). Since then, the result has been a renewed interest in modernizing and increasing capabilities of nuclear arsenals in China and Russia. In concrete terms, China has decided to abandon its age-old 20 missiles and replace them with a larger number of modern missiles. Additionally, they will be capable of delivering MIRV warheads, something which we thought we were finally rid of, not to mention unprecedented in Chinese service.

3) Test Ban Treaty: Adherance to the test ban had ended nuclear testing among the signees (notably not signed by Pak and India). A French blast marked the last test. This gave several advantages. Diplomatically, it gave us increased leverage to make sure Pak/Indian tests did not continue once capability was demonstrated. Strategically, it allowed us to use our capable computer simulations to continue our research where those nations without such capability were left without that capacity, yet unable to do actual tests. Environmentally, well obviously I think you can see the benefits to ending nuking of the planet. Bush withdrew from the test ban treaty. This has sent the message to the world that the US wants to be able to test nuclear weapons again. Can we possibly expect this to be a positive sign to anyone in the world?

Even in a world where attempts to proliferate are universally condemned, where active work towards stopping and dismantling nuclear programs is underway, and where the nuclear powers work towards reductions, there will be rogues who try and go against this. Non-proliferation is not an over-night story of sucess, but is measured in stepts. Those who seek to proliferate are brought to bear against and dealt with in a variety of ways, but the focus is always on stopping the programs.

Now that we've changed the ground rules to say that testing is okay, disrupting the nuclear balance is okay, and pre-emptive strike by whatever means deemed needed is okay, it becomes more difficult to use persuasion or negotiation and we are left with just hanging the US Military over their heads. I don't like to limit our options, and I don't feel its fair to our troops to do that to them, making them our first resort, not last.

The basic questions are what tools are in our box, and how can we add some tools, to deal with proliferation effectively?