Russian appears to be helping Iran build nukes. Is this good for the world or not?
Printable View
Russian appears to be helping Iran build nukes. Is this good for the world or not?
Какие ваши доказательства? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by sperk
(с) Ivan Danko
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. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by sperk
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!
:instruct:
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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 :thanks: 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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
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.Quote:
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...
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.Quote:
Most who didn't support the revolution have long since left the country...
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.Quote:
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.
Who are we to tell them? To be blunt, we're people with more nukes than them.
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?Quote:
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!!
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.Quote:
And for people with fundamentalist beliefs, well most Americans say they believe in creation per Genesis and fairly imminent Rapture.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
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.Quote:
The normal rules of rationality simply don't apply here.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Again, no one is telling Khamenei how to rule 'his' people, he's simply being told that he can't have nukes.
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).Quote:
Western 'rationality'...
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
No they wouldn't. Nukes would just make them much better at indiscriminately killing each other than they already are.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
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.
Israel doesn't talk usually, it bombs. That's why Iran wants nukes.Quote:
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 - Israel has nukes. In order to achieve parity either Iran too has to have it or Israel must be disarmed.Quote:
Again, no one is telling Khamenei how to rule 'his' people, he's simply being told that he can't have nukes.
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]Quote:
[quote:1glxorsz]
Western 'rationality'...
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.
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.Quote:
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).
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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:
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.
No they wouldn't. Nukes would just make them much better at indiscriminately killing each other than they already are.[/quote:1glxorsz]Quote:
[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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
End of.
:lol: :flazhok:
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.
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???? :ROFL:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
A few words about the nukes and the independence. I don't want to depend on anyone. Can I have some nukes, please? :tease:
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. :no: ) 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. :instruct:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
ЗЫ. "Ребята, давайте жить дружно." :friends:
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').Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
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.Quote:
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!!!"
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.Quote:
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???? :ROFL:
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.Quote:
A few words about the nukes and the independence. I don't want to depend on anyone. Can I have some nukes, please? :tease:
Even with the whole nuclear strategic forces of the US it can kill only about 50% of Russian population (Russia can kill even less).Quote:
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. :no: ) 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. :instruct:
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
So, you really want the red pill, huh? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I'm a nation. Can I have it now? :tease:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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. :tease:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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? :tease:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Do you have a reliable source to support the percentage thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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).Quote:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Yes, I think we have gone past this point in 1945. After this, violence cannot be an instrument of 'unification'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Assimilation is a natural process. Do you really think that Yermak with hundred cossacks militarily conquested the whole Siberia?Quote:
If Russian country evolved enough to 'unite' the Tungus, isn't that evolutional?
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.Quote:
So, say Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in a perfectly natural evolutional process. Is that OK or there should be the "intervention"? Or maybe not?
I'm not shutting down my consciousness, quite the opposite. Amen to the Internet. Why listen to propaganda while I can get unbiased facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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?"Quote:
So, you really want the red pill, huh? ;)
:lol: 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. :D Then again, I'm a wicked person.Quote:
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? :tease:
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 (:lol: strategically speaking, of course).Quote:
Do you have a reliable source to support the percentage thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
They cannot guarantee 100% efficiency. Look at the map - 3 'dirty' nukes will be enough to irradiate the whole Israel.Quote:
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?
We're speaking about a very compact warfare theater. You can literally walk from Teheran to Tel Aviv without growing a long beard.Quote:
They need the support, the provision, the supply to do anything.
How 'blitz' you need to be in order to prevent some lieutenant from turning the launch key?Quote:
Besides, the army has a special feature that it could get paralyzed if the attack is sudden enough (Blitzkrieg and stuff).
Their mutual denuclearisation. ABM treaties, mutual guarantees, everything else the adults negotiate upon. :D They will start learning to trust each other. Now that option is unavailable for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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". :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Pure populism from their part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
I know only one state which already applied a nuclear bomb. Twice.
I hope you are a mind-reader so you can say that. They made their intention public, so I wish you know better what the Iranian government wants than they themselves. :unknown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Public announcements are one thing..., real politics is another. I seldom see that the words spoken by some politician are confirmed further by deeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
That's true and is definitely a strong point. So, what's the conclusion? That the US can't tell anyone not to have nukes?Quote:
Originally Posted by BappaBa
I agree with that statement. However (and we might have had different experiences), I found that more often the good deeds are those that aren't being delivered. For some reason, the bad ones work out more often. Speaking of Iran/Israel relations, I think Israel's government is not so naive to realize the nuke might be a perfect weapon to achieve the present openly declared goal of Iranian government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
So you think that the Iranian government would be wiliing to sacrifice themselves, all their country, their people and half of the Middle East just to 'wipe Israel off the map'?
I think somewhere deep inside you still think of politicians as someone very responsible. But, politics is funny the way it works. Politicians can use the nuke and than say they were cornered, their enemy left them no choice, etc. So it's the enemy whom is to blame, they are totally innocent. (And many other similar clever gimmicks.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
No, no, no. The time of talks will be over. Nobody would go asking them 'why did you drop a nuke on Israel?' Knowing the vindictivness of Israel the next thing would be a massive counter-attack with all means available at their disposal. Moreover, I think USA will intervene too. Nobody in Iran would risk that. I'm not talking about 'responsibility', I'm talking about self-preservation instinct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
In this, dare I hope, hypothetical conflict the one who moves first would lose everything.
That's why I think that Iran should have nukes. Because Israel starts talking of 'preemptive strikes' etc.
Ok, I see the difference in our points of view. I think that only the personal safety is important to a politician of a very high rank. Think about it this way: a leader of a high rank could be assassinated virtually every minute. They don't really have normal lives. They could live in a bunker. And they definitely don't care about their citizens or civilians (e.g. Halabja incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
So, let's assume a nuke was used, the Israel is in ruins, whoever survived try to leave the contaminated territory as quick as possible. Israel is a very small country. Havoc is everywhere. Israel is disorganized. Everybody just think about themselves, how to escape; all airports are not functioning; all planes are in a one-way flight out of Israel; all sea vessels had sailed off; all roads out of Israel to the neighboring countries are closed; weak and mortally sick refugees are trying to slip through to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and are blocked by their armies and police. For the army there is nothing to fight about anymore, no motivation, no command. And all international community begging Israel not to worsen the disastrous ecological situation and not to use nuke against Iran. Who would intervene with the real means to overthrow Iranian government?
1. The US/NATO countries.
2. The EU.
3. The OPEC countries.
4. Russia
5. China/India
6. Japan
7. African countries
8. Antarctic penguins.
And my answer is: NO COUNTRY would risk the nuke being dropped on either of their territory. I'm pretty sure EVERY COUNTRY would try to FORGET AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE and find the WAY TO THE COMMON BRIGHT AND PEACEFUL FUTURE. The only thing that would be left over to win would be the information war. And that's when all the gimmicks in the world would be applied.
I don't really believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
1. After the general havoc starts, everyone would only think about saving their lives and how to get out of the contaminated territory.
2. When Mr Hussein dropped 40 Scud missiles on Israel during the Gulf War, 1991 Israel's "vindictiveness" went right down the toilet. Only the shouting of some politicians was heard. The "vindictiveness" if Israel is one of the old myths dated back to the Operation Entebbe, 1976. The modern Israel politicians are very pragmatic.
So, I still think Iran could safely use a nuke against Israel and nothing bad would happen to Iran. So, Israel politicians say they are cornered and have no choice, but not to allow Iran to have a nuke by all means.
Yes, I really think that personal safety and continued well being is the only thing that worries any politician. If one can make some arrangements about personal safety (build a bunker) the continued well being part would be much more difficult.
Well, if their army worth a penny, they would react. They must have some plans for such scenarios. I would if I were them.
A single nuke of 100-150 Kt yield will cover a relatively small area (I don't expect any megatons from Iran in the foreseeable future). There will be fallout of course, but nothing very serious. We have the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (people didn't abandon those cities after the bombardments, these cities are still populated). There was also Chernobyl. With proper treatment the civilian death toll from the fallout can be minimized. So I think you're overdramatizing the afereffects.
Besides, this matter will be settled in hours, minutes maybe, not days or weeks. Even the international mass media might not react in time to create an informational wave strong enough to force Israel not to retaliate. If the army has some kind of a plan of 'what to do if we've just been nuked' (and I'm sure such plans exist) it will be immediately executed (such plans, as I can judge by American or Russian military doctrines, presume that the government is dead and there's nobody to order around, so everything is arranged in such a way that it is carried out automatically if certain conditions are met. I believe a nuclear mushroom over Tel Aviv is one of such conditions). I also think that Iranian intelligence (even if they are inept) is aware of such plans so their government knows what to expect.
The second mushroom will raise over Teheran within the next several hours at the most.
So I still don't think that you can use a nuke and get away with it.
Ok, so let's get a bit more tactical here. Every nuke has to be delivered. There are two ways for Israel to deliver their nukes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
1. A stationary silo (a missile).
2. A bomber.
How many stationary silos are in Israel? We don't know, but probably if Iranian intelligence is worth a penny they would. I don't think there would be too many. It also takes some time to activate a silo. The significant amount of special forces could be used to neutralize the small amount of the silos.
A bomber should first be loaded: the nuclear load should first be activated from the conservation and delivered to the bomber. Then the bomber has to take off with the protection of the fighters. Then it should fly over two foreign countries: Syria (or Jordan) and Iraq. And then it should fly over half the territory of Iran. So, if Iranian air force is worth a penny, it would find a way of stopping them. If Iran strikes first, the Iranian air force would have a plenty of time to prepare and coordinate as Israel's reaction could be expected and well-predicted.
But, as I said, I really doubt Israel would react.
I didn't get why that is a strong point. I think if Iranian scientists are smart enough to develop a nuclear weapon, they are definitely capable of calculating how much of that weapon would be enough to achieve the desired effect. If a single nuke is not enough, they would use three or four at the same time to cover the entire area more selectively. So, I think I'm just being realistic here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Alright, I think I made a mistake by just mentioning "begging" so you had the right to misunderstand me. So, suppose you're, say, a Russian government. You just realized what had happen to Israel (or an Iranian government was smart enough to let you know 10 minutes beforehand). Do you want the Israel nuclear reaction to happen near Turkmenistan? Probably not (because you have that special security "obligations" that you mentioned earlier). So, my rhetoric question is: would you give Iranian air force a hand? I think you would "to protect the innocent citizens" or any other valid reason. So, no, not only the mass media would try to preserve the ecology, there would also be more real means. So, there would be no more mushrooms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
So, I still think Iran could potentially safely use their nuke against Israel.
PS. I have a feeling that the experience of the USSR-US nuclear standoff seem to be affecting you a way too much. It's a totally different situation with Iran and Israel.
3. A mobile silo (we're not speaking about Intercontinental missiles here). It takes 3 to 7 minutes to prepare it for launch. They're relatively small and their main tactical advantage is their mobility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
It would take years to enrich enough U-235 or Pu-239 even for one device. Where would they get the material?Quote:
I think if Iranian scientists are smart enough to develop a nuclear weapon, they are definitely capable of calculating how much of that weapon would be enough to achieve the desired effect.
Any information whether Israel has that? And aren't special forces also useful in the scenario?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
It's been recently mentioned (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/200 ... visit.html) there is "a newly disclosed uranium enrichment facility under construction in Qom, Iran." So, if you ask me, a simple-minded crocodile, how much time it would take to build the necessary nuclear power, I would be very hesitant to respond responsibly. Do you accurately know the potential nuclear capabilities of Iran? I somewhat doubt. I know that France, Iran, Russia and the United States are meeting on 19 October to discuss something. I can safely assume part of their agenda is Iran's military nuclear capabilities. But, for a simple-minded crocodile, the mere fact of that meeting is enough to conclude some countries have concerns. And if the things would as unreachable as you said "it would take years" no serious government agency would care. So, something serious IS going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-52_LanceQuote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...Fab0EZA6mKYAAQ
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/coun...ssile2005.html
I don't think that special forces are effective because nukes are always under a heavy guard. Even an elite force can find it difficult to neutralize such a target.
Years, even with this facility (I was aware of that).Quote:
It's been recently mentioned (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/200 ... visit.html) there is "a newly disclosed uranium enrichment facility under construction in Qom, Iran." So, if you ask me, a simple-minded crocodile, how much time it would take to build the necessary nuclear power,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Currently they have 0 (ZERO) warheards.Quote:
I would be very hesitant to respond responsibly. Do you accurately know the potential nuclear capabilities of Iran? I somewhat doubt.
Well, enough with hypotheses. As the title of this article says 'Russia helping Iran build nukes'.Quote:
I know that France, Iran, Russia and the United States are meeting on 19 October to discuss something. I can safely assume part of their agenda is Iran's military nuclear capabilities. But, for a simple-minded crocodile, the mere fact of that meeting is enough to conclude some countries have concerns. And if the things would as unreachable as you said "it would take years" no serious government agency would care. So, something serious IS going on.
I said that I would believe this information but there's never been any evidence that this is actually so. The reactor Russia is building there is physically incapable of producing weapon grade Uranium. Besides, even if you have enough material you cant just blow it up. Technologies that are involved in building a nuke are very sophisticated, they require a whole industry and you'll never be able to conceal the fact that you're building a nuke considering the number of spies the US and Israel have undoubtedly planted there and a whole armada of satellites photographing every square centimeter of Iranian territory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
The self-preservation argument doesn't apply to people who want to be martyrs and go to paradise. What if their leaders have the mindset of a suicide bomber? Then they would be quite willing to sacrifice themselves and scores of their own to take out the enemy.
You should have read this entire thread before making such remarks. People that build nukes and control them wouldn't be willing to sacrifice themselves. Suicide bombers are usually young and uneducated men who were thoroughly brainwashed. You don't find such people among the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by basurero
Извиняюсь, но я не читаю всю тему, только проглядываю.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Конечно, этого не скажешь про большинство террористов, но девятнадцать 9/11 саудовцев были богатые, образованные, психически нормальные и семейные. Один, я помню, готовился к свадьбе.
Лампада, а вот я убеждён в причастности ЦРУ и лично Джорджа Буша к тем событиям. Да и вообще, в этом теракте очень много непонятных вещей, чтобы приводить его в пример.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampada
Ага, ты не знаешь, что там ещё вроде и Израиль был замешан?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil