0
   

Iran's threat. Iraq's threat. The same old BS or not?

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 11:25 pm
nimh wrote:
Lash wrote:
Yeah, eb. You're correct. What I am saying is even though we were petrified of the Russians, they weren't crazy enough to say they wanted to wipe a country off the face of the earth.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
My understanding is that even Khrushchev never set the Soviet equivalent to Def Con Three.

And yet, they came close enough...

We were that close, #1

We were that close, #2

I don't have links handy, but I do recall our side having even more near failures in our failsafe MAD policies. During my adult lifetime, we've never dealt with such threats and I think it prudent to keep it that way... to the extent that's possible. I think it probable that Nukes will one day be used again, maybe even the big one Shocked, but also think it's every civilized country's duty to take every precaution to minimize the chances as much as possible. Keeping Iran Nuclear free fits well within the necessary caution zone, IMO. Contrary to many beliefs; I don't think the effectiveness of MAD Mutually Assured Destruction has changed. While it does little to protect us from terrorism; it most certainly is what keeps the State player-members in check.

With loony statements like Ahmadinejad is famous for; the line between State and Terrorist is too thin to trust to the MAD theory. (How fitting is it that it forms the acronym "MAD"?)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 11:32 pm
People's memory are short. Russia established nuke bases in Cuba. That was as close to a nuke war we ever had on this planet. Good thing for us, Russia blinked first.

Considering that background, we must remember the nuke arsenal Russia and the US both had at the time in history.

Threats by pipsqueak countries that barely has one or two weapons will only end up destroying their own country with nukes if they ever use it. Total alienation from this planet should be enough deterrent, but we never know how crazy any leader can be.

The common interest of the world community must be imposed on those who may consider develoing, storing, and/or using nuclear weapons, and that includes the US.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 11:33 pm
Unilaterism rarely, if ever, work.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 11:40 pm
The USSR was not crazy enough to wipe a country off the face of the Earth, and yet Kruschev said. "We will bury you."
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 11:44 pm
Yet, the result answers the question.

They were bluffing.

The USSR was many bad things, but they were civilized. The same cannot be said of Iran. IMO.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 11:52 pm
Lash wrote:
Yet, the result answers the question.

They were bluffing.

How do you know Iran isn't in the same category?

Ahmedthingemie sounds scary - but then, so did Khrushchev. (What is it with baddies and unspellable names, anyway?)

Iran espouses an agressive ideology that promises to attack other countries if not conquer the world altogether; so did the Soviet Union.

Khamenei seems like a unscrupulous enough leader, not to mention a dogmatic; but a lunatic he isnt. Ahmedthingemie meanwhile, I agree with Set, is just a tool. (In more than one sense of the word, too.) He's there to intimidate and posture and puff his chest, but he doesnt have much say in the matter when it comes down to it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 11:52 pm
Ahmadinejad. <nods>. Sorry bout that.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 05:54 am
Quote:
The USSR was not crazy enough to wipe a country off the face of the Earth, and yet Kruschev said. "We will bury you."


That statement had nothing to do with a nuclear attack. It's one of those statements in which Khrushchev meant one thing and his enemies took it to mean something different.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 08:52 am
The results are that maniacs have always had access to nukes.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 08:57 am
nimh wrote:
Lash wrote:
Yet, the result answers the question.

They were bluffing.

How do you know Iran isn't in the same category?

Ahmedthingemie sounds scary - but then, so did Khrushchev. (What is it with baddies and unspellable names, anyway?)

Iran espouses an agressive ideology that promises to attack other countries if not conquer the world altogether; so did the Soviet Union.

Khamenei seems like a unscrupulous enough leader, not to mention a dogmatic; but a lunatic he isnt. Ahmedthingemie meanwhile, I agree with Set, is just a tool. (In more than one sense of the word, too.) He's there to intimidate and posture and puff his chest, but he doesnt have much say in the matter when it comes down to it.


The fundamentalist religion thingie makes the difference for me. But, if you think it makes no difference... I hope you're right.

So, you don't have concerns about Alphabetminidab holding nukes? If you think he's an Israel hater without them, don't you foresee a limited nuke exchange over there?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 10:05 am
Quote:
The results are that maniacs have always had access to nukes.

And that includes George "First Strike" Bush.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 10:12 am
source ``The goal of a nuclear-free Middle East is a longstanding one in UN resolutions and in U.S. policy,'' Cirincione said. ``Even Israel has agreed in principle to this.''

In 2004, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he was ready to discuss making the Middle East nuclear-free as part of future peace talks in the region, according to an Associated Press report from the time that cited ElBaradei.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 12:12 pm
OCCOM BILL,
You said...
Quote:
Strikes me as utter nonsense since practically every credible world leader seems to agree that Iran is flirting dangerously with WMD potential.


Now,as I recall,practically every credible world leader seemed to agree that Iraq was flirting dangerously with WMD potential,or already had them.

So,now you are agreeing with those leaders?
Why do you believe them now,yet you didnt regarding Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 12:22 pm
Occom Bill didn't?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 02:40 pm
Occom Bill still does.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 02:44 pm
That's what I thaught as well.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 02:57 pm
Lash wrote:
The fundamentalist religion thingie makes the difference for me.

I think the whole Communism World Revolution Red Scare thingie felt as frightening to Americans in Khrushchev's time as the Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad thingie feels now, is all I'm saying - from Evil Empire to Axis of Evil.

The Soviets were not just clamping down ruthlessly on any popular uprising in its own Eastern Bloc, but also aggressively expanding their political and military influence throughout the decolonising world, up to America's doorstep, without a care about the anarchy wrecked - there were still more ruthless civil wars raging back then, than now in our era of terrorism...

So I just think that your assessment that the USSR was at least "civilised" was not shared by your forebears in that time, its more like a benefit-of-hindsight thing. So I'm not sure about the value of that distinction - who knows how Khamenei will be looked back upon 40 years from now? As a bad guy, no doubt - but I'm thinking he's more in the calculating-dictator category than in the zealot lunatic one, like Osama is.

Ahmadijenad is a different story, but then, the President hasnt actually got that much power in Iran - as Khatami found out to his exasperation.

Lash wrote:
So, you don't have concerns about Alphabetminidab holding nukes? If you think he's an Israel hater without them, don't you foresee a limited nuke exchange over there?

Do I think Iran would nuke Israel? To be honest, no, not under the current leadership, not unless it would be struck first ... Israel would probably be its preferred target of retaliation if any Western country does attack it, considering it'd provide the perfect excuse to turn a threat to its own power into something about Israel, so the Arab world can be riled up/in... but not out of the blue, no, no first strike I dont think.

But forsure - it takes some swallowing hard to trust on such an assessment ... If one's wrong...
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 03:01 pm
Exploding nukes in ones own back yard, as Israel is to Iran, even if there would be no retaliatory strikes would likely lead to the deaths and disfigurement of many of one's own countrymen, due to radiation drift and whatall that a blast causes, wouldn't it?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 04:28 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Exploding nukes in ones own back yard, as Israel is to Iran, even if there would be no retaliatory strikes would likely lead to the deaths and disfigurement of many of one's own countrymen, due to radiation drift and whatall that a blast causes, wouldn't it?


Suicide bombers also lead to the deaths and disfigurement of many of one's own countrymen, yet that hasn't seemed to stop them.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Mar, 2006 04:32 pm
McGentrix wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Exploding nukes in ones own back yard, as Israel is to Iran, even if there would be no retaliatory strikes would likely lead to the deaths and disfigurement of many of one's own countrymen, due to radiation drift and whatall that a blast causes, wouldn't it?


Suicide bombers also lead to the deaths and disfigurement of many of one's own countrymen, yet that hasn't seemed to stop them.


Launching an invasion of Iraq also lead to the deaths and disfigurement of many of ones' own countrymen, yet that hasn't seem to stop them either

(Ebrown dryly notes we are all doomed.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 06:48:36