Iranian President makes clear why Iran would be a responsible nuclear power

[Cyclotron]

There was no chance that the Japanese would be able to nuke us back - let alone a chance that they had second strike capability. That was in the days before MAD.

[Kuciwalker]

And it was viewed by those in command, AIUI, as just a really big bomb. We perceive nukes as slightly more than that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I don't think you can make any comparison between Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the use of nuclear weapons today.

I wasn't.


I was making a comparison between what rational democratically elected governments do and what supposedly 'irrational' theocratic governments are supposed to do.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


So we just imagined the rather large number of terrorist organizations sponsored by the Soviet Union (Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof etc. ad nauseum) during the Cold War? Terrorism is a tactic that works for nuclear powers as well as the weak. Iran's close relationship over decades with various terror groups makes it even more likely to continue along that path once it builds its own nukes.

And yet, even thought the Soviets gave backing to terrorist groups (as at time so did the US), no one questioned the rationality of the USSR as a player in the system and as the largest nuclear power.

Hence support for groups that carry out terrorist acitivities is not a sign of "irrationality", as terrorism is just another tactic that states can deploy, if they so whish and are willing to deal with the consequences.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Mr. President


Exactly right. Mutually assured destruction doesn't work with this kind of Muslim country because they don't care how many of their own people they have to sacrifice, nor in what kind of painful and humiliating way those people have to die, to accomplish their false god's twisted goals.

is about all this merits.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Iran is not completely insane.

It is just unrational and uncivilized, in the sense that it is warmongering by proxy, and is a major sponsor of organizations that are set out to destroy Israel, whether by declaration or fact (hezbullah, hamas, PIJ and so on).

And once Iran gets nukes, they will have far less inhibitions to use the proxy terrorist weapons.

War by proxy is not a sign of being unrational. If anything, its an obvious sign of rationality- war by proxy is cheap-its the best kind, when you let others die in your stead. Immoral perhaps, but certainly rational and most certainly civilized.

Infact, we may even start seeing "direct" Iranian action again, like the Iranian commandos who gunned down people in europe during the 80s! They were deterred from that, and they may find it feasible to do that again, knowing that they can't be threatened.

As for the "Iranian Commandos" comment, I assume you mean the 1989 slaying of Kurdish politician Abdul-Rahman Ghassemlou in Vienna. That was a political assasination. Hell, the Chileans by your statement "carried out waves of bombings!" in the US. After all, Pinochet and his cronies did have an ex-Allende minister and friend killed by a car bomb in Washington DC.

Did that make Pinochet's regime "irrational"? No. It simply showed that autoritarian regimes view political assasination as a valid option. Again, maybe immoral. Certainly NOT irrational.

[lord of the mark]

more reactions from the arab and muslim world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm


'Egypt, which has signed a peace treaty with Israel, also rejected the Iranian line.

"In principle, we are way beyond this type of political rhetoric that shows the weakness of the Iranian government," said an official at the Egyptian embassy in London.

Turkey's prime minister called on the Iranian president "to display political moderation".

While there is no sense that Iran is backing down, there are Iranians who are concerned that their country could become increasingly isolated under this new ultra-conservative government, reports the BBC Frances Harrison in Tehran'

[GePap]

Lo and behold, Iran actually hase changes in regime over time...I thought as a crazy theocracy that never happened...I mean, policy changing as new governments get elected- how could that possibly happen with the crazy Mullahs spouting Koranic verses every day.

Give me a break.

I doubt that the Islamic Republic in its current form will be the Iranian regime at the point in time in which Iran gets nukes. The decendents of Khomeini at some point are going to have to deal with thier ban on contraception in the 80's and early 90's.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I wasn't.


I was making a comparison between what rational democratically elected governments do and what supposedly 'irrational' theocratic governments are supposed to do.

How exactly is 1945 relavant to the question deterrence? Im sure lots of rational governments would use nukes if they had a monopoly on them and were engaged in a war. And Im sure anyone who thought the presence of western empires in east asia in 1940, when Japan was denied an equally extensive empire, would consider it deeply unjust for such a nuclear monopoly to be used to defeat Japan, which was only "seeking its place in the sun".

The argument is made that the specific international positions of states is not relevant to the likelihood they would use nukes, as long as their adversaries have nukes. Nukes, in this opinion, are only useful to overawe non-nuclear neighbors, or, more likely, for regime survival, to deter conventional invasion. The case of 1945 is profoundly irrelavant to this discussion. While I dont agree with GePap, at least his assertions are relevant to the discussion.


OTOH, GePap would accuse me of bringing in irrelevant items. That is because I am following this as a news story, and am trying to bring to the table whats happening - Im not focused as much on the dialectic (though I recognize the dialectic is relevant to how newsworthy this actually is) So never mind - introducing 1945 IS interesting from a historical viewpoint.


You may proceed, gentlemen.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Lo and behold, Iran actually hase changes in regime over time...I thought as a crazy theocracy that never happened...I mean, policy changing as new governments get elected- how could that possibly happen with the crazy Mullahs spouting Koranic verses every day.

Give me a break.

I doubt that the Islamic Republic in its current form will be the Iranian regime at the point in time in which Iran gets nukes. The decendents of Khomeini at some point are going to have to deal with thier ban on contraception in the 80's and early 90's.

Your first paragraph - The USSR, for ex, had changes in government that involved significant changes in policy - and such changes were expressed in votes of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. No one, after 1965, thought the Central Committee was actually making those changes - rather it was factions in the politburo - the Central Comm votes were window dressing. IIUC the situation in China today is similar. I have not said the mullahs, and their rev guard supporters are monolithic - there seem to be different factions within the high clerical councils, and even the same individuals may make different decisions from time to time. That seems to me what has happened in Iran. The core of the regime, unhappy with their experience of allowing a moderate "reformist" Khatami to rule as a figurehead - since the presidency had just enough power to make problems - determined to go back to a hardline stance - in order to make this more palatable to the public (since Iran is NOT totalitarian, and so assuaging public opinion matters to some degree) they chose someone with "populist" credentials. Now their has been evidence that they dont 100% trust Ahemidinejad, and so increased the supervisory power of the "expediency council". However I see no evidence that they are backing away from the his statements on Israel, or his positions on nukes.


2. A change in regime, as the new generation arises. Yes. Faster, please.

3. A regime is not the same as a government or administration. Thats why calls for "regime change" in the US are so stupid. When one administration succeeds another the REGIME remains the same - democracy, as organized under the US constitution. Indeed, the personnel in Congress hardly change during a given presidential cycle. Similarly when a monarch is succeeded by his son, there is no regime change - though the new monarch may pursue different foreign and domestic policies. Poland had a regime change in 1989 - it has had none since, and had none before since the 1940s, though it had many changes of govt (arguably the rise of Jaruselzkie was an exception, the power of a military man in a communist regime being exceptional) I thought you were well read in political science - surely you are familiar with the distinction between a regime and a govt?

[RGBVideo]

I sense France will help them somehow

Good prediction, I think the next goverment tries to woo it's voters by sticking it to US any chance it gets.

Lotm: The president has no real power in Iran. It's just a propaganda speech to get more support from the anti-US Iranian public. If you seriously think this had any sort of major impact on the foreign relations of any nation between any other nations, you're deluded.


...then again, you're the same guy who seriously believed Rice when she said US would cut support for Uzbekistan because of humanitarian results.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Your first paragraph - The USSR, for ex, had changes in government that involved significant changes in policy - and such changes were expressed in votes of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. No one, after 1965, thought the Central Committee was actually making those changes - rather it was factions in the politburo - the Central Comm votes were window dressing. IIUC the situation in China today is similar. I have not said the mullahs, and their rev guard supporters are monolithic - there seem to be different factions within the high clerical councils, and even the same individuals may make different decisions from time to time. That seems to me what has happened in Iran. The core of the regime, unhappy with their experience of allowing a moderate "reformist" Khatami to rule as a figurehead - since the presidency had just enough power to make problems - determined to go back to a hardline stance - in order to make this more palatable to the public (since Iran is NOT totalitarian, and so assuaging public opinion matters to some degree) they chose someone with "populist" credentials. Now their has been evidence that they dont 100% trust Ahemidinejad, and so increased the supervisory power of the "expediency council". However I see no evidence that they are backing away from the his statements on Israel, or his positions on nukes.

And yet again, Ahemidinejad has NO CONTROL OVER THE MILITARY NOR WOULD HE OVER NUCLEAR WEAPONS. He is the head of government. He is not head of state.

The fact you state that Iran is not totalitarian, that public opnion is of importance to the ruler in Iran undermines notions of them being religious fanatics that would allow tens of millions of Iranians to perish in a nuclear counterstrike.

So, if Iran is not monolithic, if it has internal struggles, if it recognizes the needs of the public, then please, explain why Iran would be less responsible with nukes than China or the Soviet Union, or say Pakistan, which has yet to blow the world up with its nukes, even thought the antagonism between it and nuclear India is actually far more tangible, direct, and real than any Iranian-Israeli antagonism.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap


War by proxy is not a sign of being unrational. If anything, its an obvious sign of rationality- war by proxy is cheap-its the best kind, when you let others die in your stead. Immoral perhaps, but certainly rational and most certainly civilized.

This is one of the largest non-sequitors ever posted.

Instead of directly answering the points and conclusions brought in my post, you are having a seemingly semantic arguement, on whether the word "irrational" would be best, to describe the Iranian policy.

I call it irrational and uncivilized when compared to western standards of diplomacy. Fine - call it "warmongering", call it "agression", call it "fresh tomatoe sause".

Just address my freaking point, you semantic slut!

[Sirotnikov]

And yet again, Ahemidinejad has NO CONTROL OVER THE MILITARY NOR WOULD HE OVER NUCLEAR WEAPONS. He is the head of government. He is not head of state.

You have no actual basis upon which to ground this statement.

In any case this is again not the real issue discussed.

Ahmedinjad, with all due respect, did not say what he said as a personal opinion - but as an iranian official. As such, the statement carries the weight of EVERYONE assosciated with the Iranian regime, especially their Supreme Leader, which, as you yourself claim - is the guy really pulling the strings.

Attempting to minimize Ahmedinjad's statement as "personal opinion of a puppet figure" is naive at best, and misleading at worst! Ahmedinjad is the political figurehead extraverting Iranian policy and views, as constituted in the darkest rooms of Iranian policy making. This makes his statement count.

[Sprayber]

I hardly think Iran itself would lauch any kind of attack on Isreal or the US. For Iran it's much easier to have others to it's dirty work for it while it sits back and denies any resposibility. Rationally speaking of course it seems stupid to be giving nuclear devices of any sort to non state organizations but we live in a world where even Russia's ability to control their arsonels is suspect. It doesn't take the leader of the country to order an attack. All it takes is one person in position of authority to believe he is doing God's will or desiring personal enrichment and a little bit here and a little bit there is diverted. That tells me that the world is a lot more dangerous but then again when has it not been?


Like I said before. I miss the cold war where things were far simpler. They hated us and we hated them but we were both happy with that situation. We had a nice little ordered world going.

Damn teh Reagan
Damn teh Gorbi