Thread: Russia helping Iran build nukes

Russian appears to be helping Iran build nukes. Is this good for the world or not?

Originally Posted by sperk

Russian appears to be helping Iran build nukes. Is this good for the world or not?

Какие ваши доказательства?
(с) Ivan Danko

Originally Posted by sperk

Russian appears to be helping Iran build nukes. Is this good for the world or not?

If something "appears" to someone, in this case such a man should cross himself, as Russian proverb says. Say also "Arctic Sea" was transferring some rockets to Iran, as some dumb general from one of the Baltic states said.

If certain countries stopped constantly talking about invading Iran and used wars elsewhere to assure its oil supply and push its' political agenda... then Iran probably wouldn't bother with nukes!

As it is, they know they are currently top of the "hit list" so who can blame them for taking precautions? I'm sure they would prefer to use the money for other things.

I don't know about Russia's involvement in Iran, and I don't care much. Iran is certainly not a threat to Europe, so why should I care? The only country that could *possibly* feel threatened by Iran right now is Israel --- they are capable to look after themselves.

If Iran attacked Israel it might start WWIII - no doubt the Iranians know this.
The way I see it, Iran is definitely not a worse country than Saudi Arabia. For women, it's apparently a lot better. Why should we care what they do there? Lots of countries have nukes anyway...

Even though there isn't any proof that Russia helps Iran to build nukes I'm almost certain that this is true.
I think that nukes is more a psychological weapon rather than a weapon one would use to defeat some real or imaginary enemy.
And I think that nukes could bring stability to the Middle East hosowever contradictory it may sound. All these arguments about 'terrorists states' are not worth a bean. Let's talk about people not states, about the leaders. They are powerful, rich and ambitious men, all of them. The mere fact that they hold power over their territories (I'm not speaking about Iran alone) speaks of their ability to maintain control over the state assets (money, energy, resources, weapons... and people). I say let them have nukes. NOTHING TERRIBLE WILL HAPPEN. This would be only a change of some rules, that's all.
Nukes grant real independence, that's why every leader in the Middle Ease wants them. Of course the 'civilized world' sees a threat. But it's not a threat to their security, it's a threat to their hehemony. They see they're losing control over a whole Middle Eastern region. But this world wasn't intended to be governed from any single place and nobody has right to rule it alone.

The negative part about nukes is that they don't grant wealth and prosperity as one may think. Things are usually the other way around. With nukes comes terrible responsibility and fear that one day they can get into wrong hands. Well, that is the price. Look at Pakistan - it's a very unstable region but they posess nukes and nothing happens.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Look at Pakistan - it's a very unstable region but they posess nukes and nothing happens.

That's a good point. In 1990 there were already over 100 times more nukes around than what's needed to make the whole planet uninhabitable...
I am all in favour of leaving Islamic countries alone instead of annoying them and creating more terrorism and schisms. Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine.... I have a lot of sympathy for Israels vulnerable position though.

You're talking about a medieval theocracy, and a relatively poor one at that, whose president has recently ordered the building of a highway at vast expense to honour and facilitate the imminent return of the twelfth (or 'hidden') imam - the Mahdi - someone who has been 'missing' since some time around the end of the 9th century and has been prophesised to return (with Jesus Christ for a sidekick!) to bring justice and peace to the world. The normal rules of rationality simply don't apply here.

The fact that their treatment of women is mildly less vile than in Saudi Arabia doesn't negate the fact that their regime is bat-shit insane.

Actually, they had a popular revolution, remember? The majority WANTED a theocracy rather than the corrupted pro-US regime that they had before that.. Most who didn't support the revolution have long since left the country... I think it's THEIR business what kind of government they want. Lots of people aren't interested in democracy, they just want a stability and economic progress, or the possibility to live according to their beliefs.

Who are we to tell Iranians how to run their country? They are not trying to tell us what we can or can't do, whether we can have nukes, or complain about ridiculous phenomenons in Europe such as the monarchies, the EU bureacracy and much, much more. Zimbabwe for instance is A LOT crazier and more useless than Iran, but wait, they have no oil and neither are they in a geographically strategic location, like North Korea.... so never mind!!

And for people with fundamentalist beliefs, well most Americans say they believe in creation per Genesis and fairly imminent Rapture (which means many people consider environmental concerns unimportartant.)

I don't think we have any right to tell the Iranians how they should run their own country, or say that they have less right to defend themselves than France, Israel or Pakistan. That's just hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Scotcher, you are speaking as you've been taught, I think!

I'm speaking as someone who was engaged to an Iranian girl for three years and who has visited Iran on several occasions. What qualifies you to assume that you're better informed?

Actually, they had a popular revolution, remember? The majority WANTED a theocracy rather than the corrupted pro-US regime that they had before that.. With the shah and his exceseses.
Most who didn't support the revolution have long since left the country...

Whoa there, I'd like to see your sources for the claim that the majority wanted theocracy. Many groups were involved in the overthrow of the Shah, from communists and trade unionists to secular liberals to nationalists to religious zealots and everything in between. The Islamists just played their cards better than those other groups and grabbed power afterwards. There certainly were and are plenty of very, very religious people in Iran, but to assume that they all wanted or want to live under a medieval theocracy is both ignorant and incredibly condescending.

Most who didn't support the revolution have long since left the country...

Two thirds of the population of Iran weren't even born at the time of the revolution, so it's a bit shakey to claim that the only people still there are those who supported it. The vast majority have never been asked.

Who are we to tell them how to run their country? They are not trying to tell us what we can or can't do, whether we can have nukes or complain about ridiculous phenomenons in Europe such as the monarchies, the EU bureacracy nonsense and much, much more.

No one is trying to tell them how to run their country, they're being told they can't have nukes, and as signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they've already agreed to that.

Who are we to tell them? To be blunt, we're people with more nukes than them.

Zimbabwe for instance is A LOT crazier, but wait, they have no oil and are not in a strategic location like North Korea.... so never mind!!

Zimbabwe's regime isn't even in the same league, isn't even in the same sport as Iran when it comes to crazy, but even if they were, I don't think Zimbabwe should or would be allowed nukes either. They don't seem particularly interested in acquiring them though, so I don't really see your point. The NK leadership, on the other hand, is probably the craziest government on the whole planet, but who has ever said it is acceptable that they've got nukes?

And for people with fundamentalist beliefs, well most Americans say they believe in creation per Genesis and fairly imminent Rapture.

Absolutely, those people are also insane and potentially dangerous and in an ideal world they wouldn't be allowed anywhere near powerful weapons either. Neither would the Israelis for that matter, and it's an absolute scandal that they ever did acquire them. It's not an ideal world though, and just because one nut-job has a gun that doesn't mean we should let them all have one.

I don't think we have any right to tell the Iranians how they should run their own country, or say that they have less right to defend themselves than France, Israel or Pakistan. That's just hypocrisy.

He who has the might has the right. Your notions of fairness are naive and childish. We're not talking about everyone getting a cookie here, we're talking about preventing an unhinged regime with a demonstrable history of disregard for the well-being of its own people and an explicit religious fetish for the concepts of martyrdom and the imminent final battle between good and evil from acquiring the most destructive weapons ever devised by man. Fairness doesn't come into it. Life isn't fair.

Originally Posted by scotcher

You're talking about a medieval theocracy, and a relatively poor one at that, whose president has recently ordered the building of a highway at vast expense to honour and facilitate the imminent return of the twelfth (or 'hidden') imam - the Mahdi - someone who has been 'missing' since some time around the end of the 9th century and has been prophesised to return (with Jesus Christ for a sidekick!) to bring justice and peace to the world.

So what? Where in the stars is written that a medieval theocracy cannot have nuclear weapons? And 'medieval' is a western label. I believe Ali Khamenei knows about ruling his people a lot more than you do or Barak Obama does.

The normal rules of rationality simply don't apply here.

Western 'rationality'... And you cannot approach Middle Eastern problems having only a westerner's opinion about how the state must be ruled, about what's right and what's wrong, about what's good and what's bad even. Do not try to apply the western moral or western 'rules of rationality' where they won't fit and were never intended to. The westerners have usurped the right to decide what's rational and what's not, who dares what, etc. And they have been enforcing that position WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS since 1945. Nukes grant independence. Let them have it.

Originally Posted by scotcher

The fact that their treatment of women is mildly less vile than in Saudi Arabia doesn't negate the fact that their regime is bat-@@@@ insane.

Again - their rulers know how to rule these people. No western democrat would last for a week ruling there. Do not try to apply western morale where it doesn't belong.

And another thing: it may be that the present Middle Eastern governmens (or regimes as one might prefer to call them) are a bit childish about certain things. Nukes would make them mature and become grownups.

Originally Posted by Ramil

So what? Where in the stars is written that a medieval theocracy cannot have nuclear weapons? And 'medieval' is a western label. I believe Ali Khamenei knows about ruling his people a lot more than you do or Barak Obama does.

It's written in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran are signatories. That is why the international community are trying to use diplomacy to stop them instead of just allowing Israel to make a pre-emptive strike, as they did against Iraq in the 80s and will surely do against Iran the second they think it's necessary.

Again, no one is telling Khamenei how to rule 'his' people, he's simply being told that he can't have nukes.

Western 'rationality'...

The rationality of self-interest and self-preservation. The rationality that says 'if I destroy my enemy then my enemy will destroy me, and that would be a bad thing'. The rationality, grotesque as it often was, that ultimately prevented the cold war from ever becoming hot, or has so far prevented Pakistan and India from wiping each other out (though lord knows what'll happen if the Islamists ever take over in Pakistan).

You're absolutely right to say that that sort of rationality can't be applied to a theocracy like Iran. That's precisely the problem.

And you cannot approach Middle Eastern problems having only a westerner's opinion about how the state must be ruled, about what's right and what's wrong, about what's good and what's bad even. Do not try to apply the western moral or western 'rules of rationality' where they won't fit and were never intended to. The westerners have usurped the right to decide what's rational and what's not, who dares what, etc. And they have been enforcing that position WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS since 1945. Nukes grant independence. Let them have it.

By assuming that the Ayatollas want nukes in order to gain political independence you are the one guilty of projecting your own social mindset onto their actions, not me. I'm not arguing that Iran should be forced to do anything, I'm just arguing that it would be a really bad idea for the tiny band of fuckwits in charge of Iran to have access to nuclear weapons.

And if you really beleive that the Russian government is helping (or at least failing to oppose as strongly as they might) Iran out of some altruistic principle of Iranian sovereinty rather than because Iran is a useful screw they can turn whenever they need leverage with the US then you're even more naive than the rest of the abject drivel you've posted in this thread would suggest.

Again - their rulers know how to rule these people. No western democrat would last for a week ruling there. Do not try to apply western morale where it doesn't belong.

This is such an incredibly condescending attitude (towards the Iranians, not me). They are no less capable of self-determination and rule-by-consent than the Russians were when they were denied those rights. Indeed, lets not forget that they had a functioning democracy at one point until the Americans and Brits toppled it to install the Shah.

That's not really the point though, because I'm not suggesting that anyone should topple their regime (though I'd be happy to see the Iranians do it themselves), I'm arguing only that it would be a bad idea to let them have nukes.

And another thing: it may be that the present Middle Eastern governmens (or regimes as one might prefer to call them) are a bit childish about certain things. Nukes would make them mature and become grownups.

No they wouldn't. Nukes would just make them much better at indiscriminately killing each other than they already are.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Originally Posted by Ramil

So what? Where in the stars is written that a medieval theocracy cannot have nuclear weapons? And 'medieval' is a western label. I believe Ali Khamenei knows about ruling his people a lot more than you do or Barak Obama does.

It's written in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran are signatories.

A good point, but this treaty (like any other) is subject to revision from time to time, moreover, Israel still denies they have nukes but they do. The Western world has shown many times that they may break any treaty if there is some economical or political gain, Yugoslavia and Iraq pop in mind immediately.
Well, if the US had not violated some international treaties to which they were signatories themselves Iran probably woudn't have striven so hard to obtain its own nukes. Not to mention the Israelis' policy in the region. I'm not saying that Ayatollas are saint, but they do want to preserve their state and their power. I simply don't believe they want to actually USE nukes first. Crazy people cannot run the country for any prolonged period of time.

That is why the international community are trying to use diplomacy to stop them instead of just allowing Israel to make a pre-emptive strike, as they did against Iraq in the 80s and will surely do against Iran the second they think it's necessary.

Israel doesn't talk usually, it bombs. That's why Iran wants nukes.

Again, no one is telling Khamenei how to rule 'his' people, he's simply being told that he can't have nukes.

Again - Israel has nukes. In order to achieve parity either Iran too has to have it or Israel must be disarmed.

[quote:1glxorsz]
Western 'rationality'...

The rationality of self-interest and self-preservation. The rationality that says 'if I destroy my enemy then my enemy will destroy me, and that would be a bad thing'.[/quote:1glxorsz]

You deny the possibility that the Ayatollas might think the same? They have much to lose if anything major happens. Much more than any Israeli prime minister or a president.

The rationality, grotesque as it often was, that ultimately prevented the cold war from ever becoming hot, or has so far prevented Pakistan and India from wiping each other out (though lord knows what'll happen if the Islamists ever take over in Pakistan).

Nothing will happen. You can't beat USA with 300 or so nukes, but you could end up living in a radioactive desert yourself if you try.

You're absolutely right to say that that sort of rationality can't be applied to a theocracy like Iran. That's precisely the problem.

I still think that they are perfectly rational. That example with the highway really doesn't prove anything. A bit silly perhaps from our point of view, but I've seen much greater stupidity from my own government to criticise that.

By assuming that the Ayatollas want nukes in order to gain political independence you are the one guilty of projecting your own social mindset onto their actions, not me. I'm not arguing that Iran should be forced to do anything, I'm just arguing that it would be a really bad idea for the tiny band of @@@@ in charge of Iran to have access to nuclear weapons.

A tiny band indeed! They're a lawful and sovereign government of their people. The fact that their methods of ruling doesn't correspond with the western notion of morality doesn't automatically make them 'a band'. I can recall a number of atrocities committed by perfectly 'democratic' and 'liberal' regimes. Besides, I'm a strong believer in the fact that democracy as a form of government is a blight upon the face of this world and must be purged before it's too late.

And if you really beleive that the Russian government is helping (or at least failing to oppose as strongly as they might) Iran out of some altruistic principle of Iranian sovereinty rather than because Iran is a useful screw they can turn whenever they need leverage with the US then you're even more naive than the rest of the abject drivel you've posted in this thread would suggest.

No, I think that our government hopes to gain influence in the region by working through Iran. I think that many high-ranked Iranian officials are bought or hooked by the Russian Federal Security Service. A nuclear Iran would become a local 'superpower' in the region and Russia would pursue its own interests there.

That's not really the point though, because I'm not suggesting that anyone should topple their regime (though I'd be happy to see the Iranians do it themselves), I'm arguing only that it would be a bad idea to let them have nukes.

OK. Why would this be a bad idea? But please don't start that boring old song about 'threats', 'terrorism', etc. The international terrorism if you ask me is sponsored by the Pentagon and CIA, not Iran.

[quote:1glxorsz]And another thing: it may be that the present Middle Eastern governmens (or regimes as one might prefer to call them) are a bit childish about certain things. Nukes would make them mature and become grownups.

No they wouldn't. Nukes would just make them much better at indiscriminately killing each other than they already are.[/quote:1glxorsz]

Why don't they kill each other now? Even conventional weapons are capable of depopulating the Middle East, not to mention chemical and biological arms. Why do you think that nukes will change anything?

Jeez... I was quite happy to carry on this conversation until I reached this little cracker:

Originally Posted by Ramil

Besides, I'm a strong believer in the fact that democracy as a form of government is a blight upon the face of this world and must be purged before it's too late.

If you really believe that then you're either an imbecile or a deeply disturbed individual and there's no further point in us trying to find any common understanding.

End of.

Didn't expect that, do you? That's the whole point. Everyone in the west has been brainwashed about the democracy. They keep saying that it's the only possible choice. Well, they're wrong or so I think, and I'm not alone in this.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Everyone in the west has been brainwashed about the democracy.

Alright, everything was relatively nice until this point. I think you're mature enough to realize that everyone was brainwashed in almost about everything they do! Westerners were taught since schools (=brainwashed) about the supremacy of the democracy, the Islamists were taught since schools (=brainwashed) about the supremacy of the Sharia, and so on and so forth. You can't really bring a "brainwashing" to justify anything as even the point you mentioned was really being washed into your brain by the certain media. Just turn on the TV and you'll hear The Choir singing "THE US IS TELLING EVERYONE IN THE WORLD HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE!! BEWARE!!! THEY WILL COME TO YOU AND MAKE YOU LIVE THE WAY THEY WANT!!! HRRRRR!!!" I noticed the way that some Russians discuss things. If they don't agree, they would just say: "You're saying that because you have been paid by the US!" Isn't that the result of the BRAINWASHING????

A few words about the nukes and the independence. I don't want to depend on anyone. Can I have some nukes, please?
Seriously, though. You have built the connection between the nukes and the independence, and you also mentioned the glue that would hold those two together. And that is the assumption that nobody would use the nukes because the nukes could also be used against them. (And they might be the responsible environmentalists too. ) So, guess what - the strategy of using the WMD is based on their sudden and massive use. So that the enemy would have NO CHANCE to use theirs. (Or they would only be able to have a very limited use.) And that is tactically possible. So, please-please-please don't BRAINWASH us telling that the mere fact of possessing the nukes has an implied assurance they would never be used.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Originally Posted by Ramil

Besides, I'm a strong believer in the fact that democracy as a form of government is a blight upon the face of this world and must be purged before it's too late.

If you really believe that then you're either an imbecile or a deeply disturbed individual and there's no further point in us trying to find any common understanding.

End of.

Scotcher, I think you got it too literally - Ramil is an anarchist and so he believes ANY FORM OF THE GOVERNMENT is a blight upon the face of this world. So, it's just a moot point. He's still a smart guy.

ЗЫ. "Ребята, давайте жить дружно."

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Everyone in the west has been brainwashed about the democracy.

Alright, everything was relatively nice until this point. I think you're mature enough to realize that everyone was brainwashed in almost about everything they do! Westerners were taught since schools (=brainwashed) about the supremacy of the democracy, the Islamists were taught since schools (=brainwashed) about the supremacy of the Sharia, and so on and so forth.

And I say let them in the West live with their democracy and let the Islamists live with Sharia. Don't start pointing fingers at each other and don't try to right the opponent's wrongs. Unfortunately, I notice the tendency that certain, say 'ideologies' try to establish a worldwide domination. Some nice looking fellows in good suits and with perfect teeth keep pounding certain things into my brain: "this is good for you, this is bad for you, blah, blah, blah". As I said, this world wasn't intended for any 'unified' morale or ideology. It's perfect in its diversity where everyone can find his or her place to live in content. And any attempts to 'unite' the nations must be suppressed at the very beginning. It must be an evolutional and natural process without any intervention (even if such actions are dictated by 'good intentions' or 'just causes').

You can't really bring a "brainwashing" to justify anything as even the point you mentioned was really being washed into your brain by the certain media. Just turn on the TV and you'll hear The Choir singing "THE US IS TELLING EVERYONE IN THE WORLD HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE!! BEWARE!!! THEY WILL COME TO YOU AND MAKE YOU LIVE THE WAY THEY WANT!!! HRRRRR!!!"

You only need to switch to another channel and you'll hear quite the opposite choir. That's one of the reasons I don't watch TV.

I noticed the way that some Russians discuss things. If they don't agree, they would just say: "You're saying that because you have been paid by the US!" Isn't that the result of the BRAINWASHING????

Well, what concerns me, I always try to find weightier agruments than that. I've been explaining at length here why I'm thinking that democracy in its present form is a vile and perverted thing. An ideology of slaves who think they have freedom and rights.

A few words about the nukes and the independence. I don't want to depend on anyone. Can I have some nukes, please?

If you're a nation then why not? You don't really need nukes to do violent things to your neighbours, do you? So if you really wanted to do something evil you would have done it anyway, nukes or not.

Seriously, though. You have built the connection between the nukes and the independence, and you also mentioned the glue that would hold those two together. And that is the assumption that nobody would use the nukes because the nukes could also be used against them. (And they might be the responsible environmentalists too. ) So, guess what - the strategy of using the WMD is based on their sudden and massive use. So that the enemy would have NO CHANCE to use theirs. (Or they would only be able to have a very limited use.) And that is tactically possible. So, please-please-please don't BRAINWASH us telling that the mere fact of possessing the nukes has an implied assurance they would never be used.

Even with the whole nuclear strategic forces of the US it can kill only about 50% of Russian population (Russia can kill even less).
There's too much territory to cover. The Middle East is a very crowded place and and it's 'tactically impossible' to achieve such effect with a limited number of nukes (you'll have to be pretty thorough in order to destroy every single opponent's device before it is launched back at you).

So, you can't literally destroy your enemy. The army will probably survive and retaliate. One, two, ten, even hundred nukes would not decide the military outcome of a hypotetical war between Israel and Iran. Of course, casualties will be great and the territory would have to be abandoned, but you cannot win a war with nukes alone.
But, if Iran has nukes, Israel would be more willing to decide things by negotiations rather than by military force. Iran, from the other hand wouldn't risk nuking Israel because Teheran would also be nuked and there would be nowhere to escape for the Iranian government. There may be people among the Iranians who are not afraid of death in the name of God, but there isn't any among the ones who rule there, believe me. I repeat - they have much to lose.

The Middle Eastern problem CAN be decided peacefully if BOTH sides will be vulnerable while the present day disbalanсe, from the other hand, will always be a real bomb waiting to explode.

Originally Posted by Ramil

And any attempts to 'unite' the nations must be suppressed at the very beginning. [...] As I said, this world wasn't intended for any 'unified' morale or ideology. It's perfect in its diversity where everyone can find his or her place to live in content. It must be an evolutional and natural process without any intervention [...]

What an interesting idea. It's been mentioned a couple of times in this forum that such a large country as Russia can manage to speak the same language without major dialects. Why is that? Where is the Tungus language and the Tungus culture? Why to 'unite' the Tungus and the Chukchi? So, who can decide that until a certain point you can still 'unite' the nations and right after that point you can't? What IS the "intention" of this world? And what exactly is the "evolutional and natural" process? If Russian country evolved enough to 'unite' the Tungus, isn't that evolutional? And why wasn't it unnatural? I can't see who can decide that the "evolution" and the "nature" should be stopped right now. You also mentioned "without intervention". So, say Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in a perfectly natural evolutional process. Is that OK or there should be the "intervention"? Or maybe not?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Some nice looking fellows in good suits and with perfect teeth keep pounding certain things into my brain: "this is good for you, this is bad for you, blah, blah, blah".

It's their job. And your job as an individual is to filter out what they're saying. Not to shut down your consciousness and be proud of it ("Look at me!! I don't have a TV! Aren't I smart?!!") Historically, it wasn't a decent way for humans to protect themselves. The certain birds do hide their heads under their wings, but I bet you have the ability to think for yourself.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I've been explaining at length here why I'm thinking that democracy in its present form is a vile and perverted thing. An ideology of slaves who think they have freedom and rights.

So, you really want the red pill, huh?

Originally Posted by Ramil

I don't want to depend on anyone. Can I have some nukes, please?

If you're a nation then why not?

I'm a nation. Can I have it now?

Originally Posted by Ramil

You don't really need nukes to do violent things to your neighbours, do you?

Of course, not. I only want to do very very peaceful things. Like give them a flower or something. Maybe send some fruits on the plate.

Originally Posted by Ramil

So if you really wanted to do something evil you would have done it anyway, nukes or not.

YES-YES-YES!!! Nothing evil!! I promise!! So, now can I have a nuke? That big-big reddish one, please!! All grown-ups have it. Why can't I?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Even with the whole nuclear strategic forces of the US it can kill only about 50% of Russian population (Russia can kill even less). There's too much territory to cover.

Do you have a reliable source to support the percentage thing?

Originally Posted by Ramil

The Middle East is a very crowded place and and it's 'tactically impossible' to achieve such effect with a limited number of nukes (you'll have to be pretty thorough in order to destroy every single opponent's device before it is launched back at you).

I didn't get you here. Do you mean you plan to destroy each nuclear silo with a nuke? Have you ever heard about the special forces?

Originally Posted by Ramil

So, you can't literally destroy your enemy. The army will probably survive and retaliate.

I agree with you here. It's only the army which will physically survive. But will they really retaliate? They need the support, the provision, the supply to do anything. Besides, the army has a special feature that it could get paralyzed if the attack is sudden enough (Blitzkrieg and stuff).

Originally Posted by Ramil

But, if Iran has nukes, Israel would be more willing to decide things by negotiations rather than by military force.

Great!! Can you please tell what is it there to decide? What things are to be decided between Iran and Israel?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

So, who can decide that until a certain point you can still 'unite' the nations and right after that point you can't?

Yes, I think we have gone past this point in 1945. After this, violence cannot be an instrument of 'unification'.

If Russian country evolved enough to 'unite' the Tungus, isn't that evolutional?

Assimilation is a natural process. Do you really think that Yermak with hundred cossacks militarily conquested the whole Siberia?

So, say Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in a perfectly natural evolutional process. Is that OK or there should be the "intervention"? Or maybe not?

300 tanks cannot be called an instrument of evolution. And he didn't pretend at least that he did that for the benefit of the citizens of Kuwait.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Not to shut down your consciousness and be proud of it ("Look at me!! I don't have a TV! Aren't I smart?!!")

I'm not shutting down my consciousness, quite the opposite. Amen to the Internet. Why listen to propaganda while I can get unbiased facts?

So, you really want the red pill, huh?

Когда старому еврею показали глобус и попросили тыкнуть пальцем в страну, куда он хочет выехать из СССР, он его долго крутил в руках, потом спросил поморщившись: "А у вас нет другого глобуса?"

YES-YES-YES!!! Nothing evil!! I promise!! So, now can I have a nuke? That big-big reddish one, please!! All grown-ups have it. Why can't I?

I'll say: "Go make some then." Seriously I think that all 'warning' signs must be removed. Eventually, the overpopulation problem would solve itself this way. Then again, I'm a wicked person.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Even with the whole nuclear strategic forces of the US it can kill only about 50% of Russian population (Russia can kill even less). There's too much territory to cover.

Do you have a reliable source to support the percentage thing?

I wouldn't provide you with an exact link, but I've read some publicly available papers from the Pentagon. They considered the elimination of at least 50% of population an effective strike (provided everything would go without a scratch). I find these figures real because more than half of the population lives in rural areas. They're likely to survive. There are also 5-10% of nukes that won't reach their targets due to technical problems, another 5-10% will be shot down and more than half of them are targeted at military installations. Thus we're having about 1000 warheads aimed at civilians. The average yield is 1 Mt varying from 20 Mt to .3 Mt. Large cities will be leveled, of course, but a 'clean' .3 Mt warhead wouldn't do much damage ( strategically speaking, of course).

I didn't get you here. Do you mean you plan to destroy each nuclear silo with a nuke? Have you ever heard about the special forces?

They cannot guarantee 100% efficiency. Look at the map - 3 'dirty' nukes will be enough to irradiate the whole Israel.

They need the support, the provision, the supply to do anything.

We're speaking about a very compact warfare theater. You can literally walk from Teheran to Tel Aviv without growing a long beard.

Besides, the army has a special feature that it could get paralyzed if the attack is sudden enough (Blitzkrieg and stuff).

How 'blitz' you need to be in order to prevent some lieutenant from turning the launch key?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Great!! Can you please tell what is it there to decide? What things are to be decided between Iran and Israel?

Their mutual denuclearisation. ABM treaties, mutual guarantees, everything else the adults negotiate upon. They will start learning to trust each other. Now that option is unavailable for them.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Ramil

Great!! Can you please tell what is it there to decide? What things are to be decided between Iran and Israel?

Their mutual denuclearisation. ABM treaties, mutual guarantees, everything else the adults negotiate upon. They will start learning to trust each other. Now that option is unavailable for them.

My current understanding is that Iran's government wants Israel off the map. At least that what they say. Until they can work this one out, I doubt they can talk about the "denuclearisation".