Iran dug tunnel for military nuclear work

[GePap]

about that last line.

As for PLATO's comment- the Russians and Chinese really have no reason to care much about a nuclear Iran- the Chinese just want to keep the oil flowing and as cheap as possible, the Russians want arms customers and whomever they can peddle influence to. Actually, I think the Russians could play a bigger role than the EU given they are the ones giving Iran nuclear asssitance under the NPT, but they have shown little interest in trying to dissuade Iran.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
The only problem I see is that at some point I do fear a military attack on Iran's nuclear installations will be carried out- which will slow down Iran but will also allow the regime to crack down hard internally by claiming to be under attack, and the Iranians will act out in Iraq.

That's about the size of it. Two bad scenarios.


There should eithier be no military attack or an all out military attack...no middle ground. The strike option you lay out is likely to increase the danger in the long run.

[Pekka]

I'd agree. Either no action, or full on war. 100% apocalypse retaliation.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
about that last line.

As for PLATO's comment- the Russians and Chinese really have no reason to care much about a nuclear Iran- the Chinese just want to keep the oil flowing and as cheap as possible, the Russians want arms customers and whomever they can peddle influence to. Actually, I think the Russians could play a bigger role than the EU given they are the ones giving Iran nuclear asssitance under the NPT, but they have shown little interest in trying to dissuade Iran.

Agreed. I would also doubt the will of France to become embroiled in that type conflict, and I can't imagine that India and Pakistan would co-operate with each other...let alone the group. Thats why I said, "Fat Chance".

This is, IMHO, the only chance that the world has on capping the nuclear genie.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Pekka
I'd agree. Either no action, or full on war. 100% apocalypse retaliation.

I was actually thinking something a little less than apocalyptic. However, your point is well taken.

[Pekka]

I mean no chance for negotiations even. That's just the way to play time and get the capability and hide more and make the inner circle tighter. More like 'You have 48 hours to reply to our demands. Step down now or face the consequences.' No chances for any playing. No middle grounds, nothing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Pekka
I mean no chance for negotiations even. That's just the way to play time and get the capability and hide more and make the inner circle tighter. More like 'You have 48 hours to reply to our demands. Step down now or face the consequences.' No chances for any playing. No middle grounds, nothing.

And then do what exactly? Talking tough only works if you have a viable alternative- otherwise all it does it get you killed.

No states is going to inave Iran- the only reason we are even talking tought isd because the Iranians don;t have the ability to hold several tens of millions of people hostage like NK but otherwise, there isn't much we can do. Under those conditions its an empoty threat, the worst sort of threat.

[Pekka]

You never read any Clancy books now did you? We just sneak up 40 million men, commanded by me, and I call them up and say 'you have 48 hours to meet our demands'. Which is to totally destroy the nuke program.

Then we cut the lines. They might try to call us, but we know they will just play time sowe don't answer. This is to let them know attack will come so we can push the responsibility over evacuation to them and sleep at nights.

Then we unleash all we have. Just throw everything in there and mix it up. We might not win, but they CAN'T win. I say that's a good plan and we should go right at it. HOw's tomorrow, when the sun rises sound? You bring the coffee, I bring the guns! And someone bring the phone so we can make the call..

[MrFun]

Originally posted by PLATO

...and then a very unfortunate arms race.

Similar to the one that occured between India and Pakistan?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MrFun



Similar to the one that occured between India and Pakistan?

Somehow I think the Israelis will feel a bit more threatened.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by PLATO


Somehow I think the Israelis will feel a bit more threatened.

I know that -- but people thought it was the end of the world when India and Pakistan both obtained nuclear weapons.


So let me know when the end of the world comes.

[Dis]

Originally posted by MrFun



I know that -- but people thought it was the end of the world when India and Pakistan both obtained nuclear weapons.


So let me know when the end of the world comes.

I'm actually agreeing with Mr. Fun

actually I think every nation on this planet should be given nuclear weapons. . it's not fair that only a few countries should have this to hold over other nations.

[Agathon]

I would say that the leaders of these countries have a sworn duty to protect their citizens. If they decide that Iran not having nukes is needed to accomplish this, then what do you expect them to do? Give in to some hairbrained notion of equality of rights among countries?

And I would say that this me-first manner of thinking has been completely discredited by the events of the 20th century.

The United States and Israel already have adequate protection against Iranian nuclear weapons in the existence of their own arsenals. If the Iranians decide to waste money on nuclear weapons, they will find themselves in exactly the same situation as every other nuclear power: such weapons have no offensive use, they are only good for deterrence.

Of course people will say that the Iranians are mad enough to use them in a first strike. But people said that about the Soviet Union. It was bull then, and it's bull now.

Or the old, "they will give them to terrorists" crap. No-one has yet managed to provide sound reasoning as to how a nuclear terrorist attack on a western city would serve the national interest of Iran. The whole point of terrorism is that the terrorists want something. In order for the victim to be aware of this, the terrorists must make it known who was responsible. If that happens it won't be too hard to find out where they got the bomb from, and that would inevitably mean a massive retaliatory strike against that country.

That being the case, only a lunatic would give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group. The Iranians may be bad people, but they aren't stupid.

[Agathon]

I know that -- but people thought it was the end of the world when India and Pakistan both obtained nuclear weapons.

MrFun is exactly right.

Relations between India and Pakistan have actually improved since the nuclear standoff, because each knows that war is not worth the cost.

I hate nuclear weapons, but even I would admit that they have done a good job of preventing WWIII thus far.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon
And I would say that this me-first manner of thinking has been completely discredited by the events of the 20th century.

Interesting to know we lived in different 20th centuries. Governments act to protect their percieved vital interests. Always have and for the foreseeable future they always will.