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

[Az]

And Khrushchev, who had thermonuclear bombs, pounded his shoes in the UN and said they would burry the west.

as a side note, didn't we have a thread that established that this has no violent meaning in Russian?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


And no one has shown how the Iranian regime is not a rational agent.

One of their moderate leaders have stated that Iran would be able to "absorb" any nuclear strike from Israel. That does not suggest rationality and does not show that they believe they would be destroyed in a nuclear war.

deterrence doesn't have to fail for it to be an issue. How would we have responded to 9/11 if Afghanistan was a nuclear power?

The United States would not have invaded with regime change in mind, if it had invaded at all. Of course, the real response would be based on the capability of an Afghani second strike. Without Afghanistan having the capability of striking the US or critical US interests, the US would have a monopoly on nuclear action in this scenerio, and therefore would be able to act freely, probabvly threatening a nuclear first strike against Afghan facilities if AQ was not turned over.

And if they have the power to strike western interests, which I think Iran would be able to do (eg, Israel, oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc) what would the US do?

As LotM has stated, chemical weapons aren't in the same league.

Then why bring them up with regards to the Nazis?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


As LotM has stated, chemical weapons aren't in the same league. .

in respone to a point GePap made. He then responded to me with a snooze smiley. It seems however that GePap found my point insightful, insightful enough to use himself. He has not however admitted that HIS point about Germany was irrelevant.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Their moderate leaders have stated that Iran would be able to "absorb" any nuclear strike from Israel. That does not suggest rationality and does not show that they believe they would be destroyed in a nuclear war.

And Mao said china could survive a nuclear war, and last time I looked he ruled China for about a decade after they were a nuclear power.

And if they have the power to strike western interests, which I think Iran would be able to do (eg, Israel, oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc) what would the US do?

Be deterred, which is why the Iranians want nukes in the first place.

Then why bring them up with regards to the Nazis?

The irrationality aspect. Why wouldn't Hitler have used Sarin and Tabun on the Eastern Front? He specifically set out on a racial war of extermination in the east- German behavior obviously showed they had no problem with attrocity, and yet even the Nazi's under as good an exaple of irrational leadership as you are going to find out there, did not go all out.

People like to spout off about "irrationality", but in the end actions speak louder than words. The Iranian regime has shown itself to be a revisionist state in the system, fine, but its behavior as a revisionist state has no been particularly radical, and no, funding armed groups aimed at undermining other regimes is not a particularly radical or "far out" action. Its a pretty common behavior. Iran has domestic reasons for spouting vs Israel, and supporitng low level violence vs Israel, just as the Iranians have an interest in calling the US the great Satan. That is certainly not enough, by a long shot, to make a statement that the Iranian regime would not in actually be deterred by the inevitability of Israeli nuclear counterstrike.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


in respone to a point GePap made. He then responded to me with a snooze smiley. It seems however that GePap found my point insightful, insightful enough to use himself. He has not however admitted that HIS point about Germany was irrelevant.

Nope. Your point was hardly insightful as the post above this shows, but it was fun using your words vs. Edan.

[vomitus]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you seriously believe that an attack on either the DPRK or Iran was ever in the realm of possibility even without Iraq?

Why did you refer to North Korea as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? There are three inherent lies in "DPRK".

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you seriously believe that an attack on either the DPRK or Iran was ever in the realm of possibility even without Iraq?

If indeed, the invasion of Iraq is a part of a masterplan, with invasion if Iran as realy goal, then I support it, otherwise, the Iraq war doesnt seem very justified.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

And Mao said china could survive a nuclear war, and last time I looked he ruled China for about a decade after they were a nuclear power.

Those were damned dangerous times. Thank G-d we survived them.

funding terrorist groups aimed at murdering civilians and undermining the mideast peace process is a particularly radical and "far out" action. Its a pretty uncommon behavior.

corrected.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Nope. Your point was hardly insightful as the post above this shows, but it was fun using your words vs. Edan.

your post above is absolutely irrelevant if Chem weapons are totally unlike Nukes. Which is it?

Lets review. Hitler didnt use chem weapons in WW2. Iran and Iraq DID use chem weapons during the Iran Iraq war. Either they are UNLIKE - in which case citing WW2 is pointless. Or they are are LIKE - in which case there IS evidence that deterrence does not work. Which is it?

[Seeker]

Why not just send something stealthy and bomb anything that looks like a nuke weapons site? The Iranians are a lot less dug in than the NKs.

Blow it up, deny deny deny, no war, no nukes no muss no fuss. Conventionally the iranians are not a threat to anyone on offense. They won't do jack.

[Ramo]

Iran and Iraq didn't destroy each others' oil refineries. Now, that's MAD...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Not much we can do to prevent that now. Bush elected to go on his personal crusade to get "the guy who tried to kill my dad" instead of dealing with the real threats, Iran & North Korea. Both are more of a threat then Iraq ever was and both either have or will soon have nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly said that the US will not attack them because they are tied down in Iraq. Because they don't fear attack they are brave enough to defy everyone in order to build nuclear weapons.

There is no doubt the world would be dramatically less safe if Itan gets nuclear weapons. They are a terrorist sponsoring state which has sworn to destroy Israel and the US.

And so Iran is different than Iraq...how?

You people can deny the actions Hussein until you beat the horse into mere dust.
The facts are, Hussein murdered thousands after Bush Sr. did as the worthlessass U.N. wanted, and left without securing Hussein.
The worthlessass U.N. also mandated that Iraq would adhere to a "No fly zone".
Guess what? Hussein didn't adhere to that either, and went to far as to have his illegal flights fire on aircraft patrolling the area.

But go ahead and keep your heads firmly planted in the sand.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Iran and Iraq didn't destroy each others' oil refineries. Now, that's MAD...

They shot at each others tankers. I presume they intended to CAPTURE the oil refineries intact. They certainly each tried to capture the others production regions.

Iraq could have imported product from the Gulf countries, if their own refineries were destroyed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


your post above is absolutely irrelevant if Chem weapons are totally unlike Nukes. Which is it?

Lets review. Hitler didnt use chem weapons in WW2. Iran and Iraq DID use chem weapons during the Iran Iraq war. Either they are UNLIKE - in which case citing WW2 is pointless. Or they are are LIKE - in which case there IS evidence that deterrence does not work. Which is it?

Iraq used Chemical weapons in the Iran Iraq war to offset Iranian supperiority in manpower at a time the Iranians had no capability to retaliate in kind. The war lasted longer than Iraq planned and by then the Iranians developed their chemical abilities, and used them in kind against an enemy that had shown itself willing to use them.

IN 1991 Iraq could have used Chemical weapons against Israel, as the Saddam regime made the same sort of statements about Israel, and had shown a willingness to use chemical weapons in the past. They didn't. They were deterred.

The argument remains an oh so simple one: claiming a state to be irrational is useless unless you can show that it carries out irrational actions. You can state for exmaple that the Hitler regime was irrational-and even there you can see deterrence at work on a very irrational actor.

Iran remains a revisionist state in the system, but it has hardly shown itself to be irrational in action. The regime certainly is no longer revolutionary. That went with Khomeini.

Iran has very clear and obvious reasons to want nuclear weaponry. Getting itself nuked is not likely one of them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


IN 1991 Iraq could have used Chemical weapons against Israel, as the Saddam regime made the same sort of statements about Israel, and had shown a willingness to use chemical weapons in the past. They didn't. They were deterred.

Iraq had CW, and Israel had nukes.