Russian MP Says US To Attack Iran Late March

...Better to pay dollars than lives.

Iran if they are so inclined will develop a nuclear capability. And there is not a damn thing that the US can do or the EU will do about it. Bush of course will, as always, use the fear as a political weapon. However, I can't believe he could be so stupid as to pull an Iraq on Iran.

As for that high priced debating society, the UN. They will continue to do what they always do. Debate.

As is the case with Pakistan?

How about India, South Africa, Israel, North Korea?

Nuclear non-proliferation was a good idea proposed for cynical reasons. Originally, both the United States and Russia wanted to be sure the Chinese didn't get nukes. It didn't work. Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa and North Korea have all demonstrated that a well-funded research project conducted by competent physicists can produce atomic weapons. The big boys wanted to be sure no one else could join the nuclear club, because the equations were difficult enough as it was. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Your entire position is predicated upon the assumption that an Islamic state must necessarily be irresponsible with respect to terrorists. Pakistan is not an Islamic state, but anyone who cannot see the extent to which Islamic fundamentalist fanaticism grips that nation is living in la-la land. I wonder if you got this worked up over the idea that the Israelis were building nukes.

Iran if they are so inclined will develop a nuclear capability. And there is not a damn thing that the US can do or the EU will do about it. Bush of course will, as always, use the fear as a political weapon. However, I can't believe he could be so stupid as to pull an Iraq on Iran.

As for that high priced debating society, the UN. They will continue to do what they always do. Debate.

au1929 wrote:

Iran if they are so inclined will develop a nuclear capability. And there is not a damn thing that the US can do or the EU will do about it. Bush of course will, as always, use the fear as a political weapon. However, I can't believe he could be so stupid as to pull an Iraq on Iran.

As for that high priced debating society, the UN. They will continue to do what they always do. Debate.

And if so many countries get the bomb that use becomes almost certain? We should just sit back and let that happen, I suppose?

Setanta wrote:

As is the case with Pakistan?

How about India, South Africa, Israel, North Korea?

Nuclear non-proliferation was a good idea proposed for cynical reasons. Originally, both the United States and Russia wanted to be sure the Chinese didn't get nukes. It didn't work. Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa and North Korea have all demonstrated that a well-funded research project conducted by competent physicists can produce atomic weapons. The big boys wanted to be sure no one else could join the nuclear club, because the equations were difficult enough as it was. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Your entire position is predicated upon the assumption that an Islamic state must necessarily be irresponsible with respect to terrorists. Pakistan is not an Islamic state, but anyone who cannot see the extent to which Islamic fundamentalist fanaticism grips that nation is living in la-la land. I wonder if you got this worked up over the idea that the Israelis were building nukes.

When every man, woman, child, cat, and dog has nukes, both the good and the bad, they will be used somehow, somewhere. Surely it's obvious that that is all but certain. It is strongly in our interest not to allow this scenario to come to pass, particularly with countries that a reasonable person would consider high risk.

Brandon9000 wrote:

au1929 wrote:

Iran if they are so inclined will develop a nuclear capability. And there is not a damn thing that the US can do or the EU will do about it. Bush of course will, as always, use the fear as a political weapon. However, I can't believe he could be so stupid as to pull an Iraq on Iran.

As for that high priced debating society, the UN. They will continue to do what they always do. Debate.

And if so many countries get the bomb that use becomes almost certain? We should just sit back and let that happen, I suppose?

"Almost certain"? That's an example of the exaggeration and inexactitude I referred to. Use is, or would be, suicidal for any party who did deploy such a weapon, as Set pointed out and as history over the last fifty plus years demonstrates. There are already how many nuclear-armed nations?

Really all you can say is that increased proliferation is a negative as it makes raises the possibility of use, to some degree, which is why proliferation ought prudently to be minimized.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

As is the case with Pakistan?

How about India, South Africa, Israel, North Korea?

Nuclear non-proliferation was a good idea proposed for cynical reasons. Originally, both the United States and Russia wanted to be sure the Chinese didn't get nukes. It didn't work. Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa and North Korea have all demonstrated that a well-funded research project conducted by competent physicists can produce atomic weapons. The big boys wanted to be sure no one else could join the nuclear club, because the equations were difficult enough as it was. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Your entire position is predicated upon the assumption that an Islamic state must necessarily be irresponsible with respect to terrorists. Pakistan is not an Islamic state, but anyone who cannot see the extent to which Islamic fundamentalist fanaticism grips that nation is living in la-la land. I wonder if you got this worked up over the idea that the Israelis were building nukes.

When every man, woman, child, cat, and dog has nukes, both the good and the bad, they will be used somehow, somewhere. Surely it's obvious that that is all but certain. It is strongly in our interest not to allow this scenario to come to pass, particularly with countries that a reasonable person would consider high risk.

I see you choose to side step the question of those small nations other than Iran which already have nukes--quite rightly, as it so clearly embarrasses your silly thesis. You make your argument even more ridiculous with the "every man, woman, child, cat and dog" statement. It is not reasonable to assume that the possession of nukes by any particular nation make it more likely that they will be used--since 1945, atomic military devices have proliferated from a handful to tens of thousands, and have been made into all manner of bombs and artillery shells--and yet have not been used since that attack on Nagasaki. You ignore (once again, an embarrassment to your naive and facile argument) that Pakistan has nukes, has had for years, and has a significant violent, Islamic fundamentalist element in its population. Your remark about what a reasonable person would consider high risk is meaningless, as your hysteria and exaggeration about threats and threat possibilities in the middle east in these fora over the last few years in no way suggest that you are reasonable when discussing this topic.

Two former Central Intelligence Agency officials who were directly involved in producing CIA estimates on Iran revealed in separate
interviews that the National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) on Iran have consistently portrayed its concerns about the military threat posed by the United States as a central consideration in Tehran's nuclear policy.

I think you can make a stronger statement:

When lots and lots of countries are armed to the teeth with WMD, including the most despotic, unstable, and terroristic countries, eventual use is very likely.

No, there is no reason to think it "very likely" though I understand you hold that view.

Yes, Pakistan is a high risk entity to possess nukes.

I disagree with your thesis.

I think that as nukes proliferate to more and more countries, especially despotic countries, unstable countries, or countries that support terrorism, the likelihood that someone will use them at some point in time increases, and even becomes highly likely.

I should think this would be hard to disagree with.

When many, many countries have nukes, someone will eventually use one, or sell one to someone who will.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Yes, Pakistan is a high risk entity to possess nukes.

But it does not, apparently, bother you that we are allied with them for purposes of an alleged war on terror (which we left languishing on the vine to pursue the PNAC agenda in Iraq), and yet you seem to think it reasonable to be alarmed about Iran, a nation with a far more stable government.

Quote:

I disagree with your thesis.

No. . . really ? ! ? ! ?

Quote:

I think that as nukes proliferate to more and more countries, especially despotic countries, unstable countries, or countries that support terrorism, the likelihood that someone will use them at some point in time increases, and even becomes highly likely.

Yes, you habitually repeat your thesis without any more substantiation for your contentions than that it is based upon your surmise. You do this on all political threads, and you ignore any cogent arguments advanced against your thesis. South Africa was the very essence of a despotic nation when it acquired nuclear weapons. The support for bin Laden provided in Pakistan at the time of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was crucial to the establishment of al Qaeda, and Pakistan was developing its nuclear program at that time. There is no more despotic regime today than North Korea. Pakistan's government has never been stable since the nation was established in 1947. You have no evidence to offer, and you ignore any which is pointed out to you as being contradictory to your thesis. I suspect now that you will trot out one of your favorite whines and complain that you are being attacked personally and that your thesis has not been answered. That would be typical of your forensic method in a political thread, and it would be horsie poop.

For once, why don't you do what you always falsely whine that others do not do, and answer the propositions which have been advanced in contradiction of your opinion--that's all it is, an opinion, unsupported, and based upon vague generalities. You simply never address specific challenges to your vague generalities.

Quote:

I should think this would be hard to disagree with.

Yes, we are all familiar with your inability to consider the possibility that someone could completely disagree with you, while having an intelligent and considered basis for doing so.

Quote:

When many, many countries have nukes, someone will eventually use one, or sell one to someone who will.

Depends on what you mean by many. The United States, Russian, the Ukraine, France, England, South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and very probably Brasil and Taiwan (the latter two denying it, but having the expertise and the will)--that number of nations (just off the top of my head, i may be forgetting some) seems to meet a reasonable definition of "many" to me. There could have been few nations less stable than the Federation which replaced the former Soviet Union, few nations more sympathetic to Islamic terrorism than Pakistan, few nations more despotic that North Korea--nevertheless, we have no evidence of nukes being sold to anyone.

Don't bother to reply, you get tediously quickly. Unless you come up with specific bases for your contentions, there's little point in continuing to present the same points to you over and over again, only to have you spew out more banal generalities which constitute nothing but an unsupported speculation.