Why is every republican candidate in heat to nuke iran besides ron paul.

[MRT144]

Irrational fear. On one hand people call religious extremists crazy and then on the other we are told that to fear their actions is irrational. That really doesn't make sense to me. What is needed is a rational fear of any state trying to acquire nuclear weapons and a serious look at the motivations for it.

To accept eithier that they are crazy and use nukes or to dismiss it out of hand as "irrational" is just plain dumb.

We need people who are going to look at the situation with a very concerned and realistic point of view.

If you can't have a discussion about mitigating nuclear proliferation without somehow involving the proactive use of nuclear weapons...

[MRT144]

Remember that relations with Israel matter much more than relations with the entire continent of Europe!

Obviously.

[C0ckney]

Irrational fear. On one hand people call religious extremists crazy and then on the other we are told that to fear their actions is irrational. That really doesn't make sense to me. What is needed is a rational fear of any state trying to acquire nuclear weapons and a serious look at the motivations for it.

To accept eithier that they are crazy and use nukes or to dismiss it out of hand as "irrational" is just plain dumb.

We need people who are going to look at the situation with a very concerned and realistic point of view.

my point is that countries like north korea (a totalitarian dictatorship based on a weird personality cult) or pakistan (fast becoming a failed state, in no small part due to war in afghanistan) have nukes and have not used them. we've had nuclear armed states fall apart (the soviet union). even israel, which has attacked a neighbouring country as recently as 2006 has not ever used its nuclear weapons. in fact the only country to ever use nuclear weapons is the USA.

but according to you, looking at history and making a judgement based on that is 'dismissing it out of hand'.

if you want to argue that iran is likely to use nuclear weapons, then feel free to actually make that argument.

also, i've already explained why iran would like a nuclear weapon. to deter an american invasion. it's pretty obvious really, when you consider recent history in the region.

[PLATO]

Wow...I get a nice "rollseyes" smiley.

I think that it is very problematic to say "Because state K didn't use them, then it follows that state I won't use them" This seems logical on the surface, but denies the fact that some decisions are made illogically. Would it be "logical" for Iran to use nukes? I agree that it probably is not. However, there is a fundamental difference in Iran that must be factored into the equation. Iran is a religious state. It is conceivable, given their President's own comments on his view of endtimes, that the decision to use nukes could be made illogically. This is why you cannot simply dismiss it out of hand because other states have (so far) made the logical choice.

The uncertainty when nuclear weapons are involved should give the world real reason to take stock of all options.

Further, with respect to your North Korea example, I really think it is to early to tell if they have actually made the decision to not use nukes offensively. Because they have not yet done so is not a solid indicator of what their actual internal policies may be. They still have quite a few technological hurddles to clear before their nukes are truly weaponized. In addition, the threat of their people starving and their country failing may leave military hardliners with a last chance type mentality.

There is no telling...and this is the point. States that do not have a stable world view should have every effort made to prevent them from aquiring nuclear weapons. Does this go to the point of bombing them? Personally I think that all that does is delay things and is not a solution. Invasion? You would have to be be pretty damn sure of their intentions to use one before committing to something like this. I actually think that the current view of isolation and sanction is the route to persue, but to many countries are not even willing to do this.

So, we are left with the real possibility that Iran will have nuclear weapons, and the reality that their use is actually unpredictable. This is why it is a hard question. Guess wrong and people die...maybe lots of people.

[regexcellent]

North Korea's nuclear weapons are of very low yield. The NK chemical weapons arsenal is a greater threat. According to the experts at the United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, chemical weapons pose a much larger danger to civilians than nuclear weapons while simultaneously being less effective against military targets, which tend to possess the equipment necessary to operate in a chemical environment, e.g. gas masks and chemical-protected vehicles.

North Korea is not so worrisome because as of yet it does not possess the delivery mechanisms necessary to attack targets farther than Japan, if even that. You should note that the Japanese are actually much more worried about North Korea than we are; Tokyo can be targeted, though not accurately. Moreover, North Korea's relationship to terrorists is a lot less significant than Iran's. North Korea is much more in the business of arming other authoritarian states, such as Zimbabwe. I don't think it even participated in arming African left-wing terrorist groups such as UNITA, ZANLA, PAIGC, and FRELIMO in the 1970's, which was a big bonanza for most of the Communist bloc (Cuba, East Germany, USSR, and China in particular). Plus, North Korea needs its arsenal to deter South Korea, which would kick its ass otherwise, probably with our assistance. I'm not sure it even has the money to give the stuff away.

Iran, on the other hand, poses a number of problems that North Korea does not. Its relationship with Islamic terrorists alongside Syria and Venezuela is very well-established. It has puppet states in Gaza and southern Lebanon. It is known to give all sorts of expensive technology to terrorists, anything small enough to smuggle. Note that nuclear warheads are rather small. Its budget for these items is enormous. It is clearly bent on the destruction of Israel, as not only does it say so in its rhetoric, but it actually takes significant steps toward that goal, specifically, funding the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. It possesses the resources and technology to develop rockets big enough and accurate enough to serve as delivery systems for the weapons it builds.

However, all of those reasons are minor points in light of the single elephant in the room, which is that Iran's nuclear program is actively encouraging nuclear weapons research in other Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia. Lots of fictional literature has been written about hypothetical stolen-nukes scenarios but the problem is actually there and the risk grows substantially with each additional state that gets nukes, as does the risk of a nuclear exchange. The Arab states are sufficiently scared of Iran that Iran's nuclear program is driving significant further proliferation. That is why it is of greater concern than North Korea.

[C0ckney]

plato: it's not impossible that a state would use nuclear weapons, but any reasonable analysis shows that it is very unlikely. the days of MAD are still with us. any government that used nuclear weapons offensively would face the prospect of the complete destruction of their country.

what concerns me is that the sort of things we're hearing now are very similar to those heard in the run up to the iraq war. we now know that many of things we were told were complete lies. at the moment it's not even clear that iran is developing a nuclear weapon. they're signatories of the non-proliferation treaty and as such, have the right to develop nuclear power.

[DinoDoc]

at the moment it's not even clear that iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

That depends. What do you think the serious concerns expressed by the IAEA meant diplospeak wise in their recent report on Iran's nuclear program? Or could you explain how any of their actions make sense in the context of a civilian nuclear program?

[regexcellent]

at the moment it's not even clear that iran is developing a nuclear weapon. they're signatories of the non-proliferation treaty and as such, have the right to develop nuclear power.

It has been painfully obvious that Iran has been seeking nuclear weapons for a very long time. Read Reza Kahlini's books. Iran has masterfully maintained this plausible deniability bull**** for the duration, through people like Mohammed ElBaradei running the IAEA and Russian and Chinese willingness to turn a blind eye. Now that ElBaradei isn't running the place, the IAEA is now finally stating the obvious. Iran hasn't even been trying to be subtle, what with announcing that it is enriching uranium to and above 20%, which is roughly the threshold required for nuclear weapons; South Africa made bombs at that level. The only other thing I can think of that requires that high level enrichment is a naval nuclear reactor for a submarine. Ordinary reactors run at something like 5%. I believe there's a poster here who's a nuclear engineer, Ogie I think, who could talk more authoritatively on the subject.

Western offers to operate nuclear power plants for the Iranians sans sanctions, using the scheme that the IAEA has in place for Brazil have been rejected by the Iranians.

[PLATO]

any reasonable analysis shows that it is very unlikely.

I guess my point is...we can't count on the Iranian leadership being "reasonable". There are a lot of factors that say they may not be.

what concerns me is that the sort of things we're hearing now are very similar to those heard in the run up to the iraq war. we now know that many of things we were told were complete lies. at the moment it's not even clear that iran is developing a nuclear weapon. they're signatories of the non-proliferation treaty and as such, have the right to develop nuclear power.

At some point we have to assume that not everything is a lie.....don't we? The IAEA seems to be trying to actually put the best light it can on facts for the Iranians. I think they could easily draw the conclusion that Iran has a weapons program.

[C0ckney]

reg: according to the IAEA report there's no conclusive evidence of a current weapons program. they found some thing they were concerned about, but no 'smoking gun'.

however, even if we accept for the sake of argument that iran is developing nuclear weapons, they have a pretty good reason for doing so. i don't see it's any more of a cause for concern than other nations who already have nuclear weapons.

[regexcellent]

reg: according to the IAEA report there's no conclusive evidence of a current weapons program. they found some thing they were concerned about, but no 'smoking gun'.

That is somewhat misrepresenting the findings. As with all diplomatic bodies the IAEA tends to use rather mild language. In any case, the lack of a smoking gun doesn't change that the circumstantial evidence and testimonial evidence we have from defectors is very, very strong. Consider:
* The construction of large hardened bunkers outside Qom with what appear to be SA-20 batteries around them to house enrichment centrifuges
* The refusal of visits by IAEA inspectors to various nuclear program locations
* The enrichment of uranium above 20%
* Long-range ballistic missile research

There are others and they all add up to "Iran wants nukes." The reason the inspectors never found a smoking gun is because Iran would never allow them to find a smoking gun. It's worth noting that the Iranian opposition also believes that the program is not for peaceful purposes, and wants it stopped.

however, even if we accept for the sake of argument that iran is developing nuclear weapons, they have a pretty good reason for doing so. i don't see it's any more of a cause for concern than other nations who already have nuclear weapons.

If fear of American intervention or invasion is one of the driving reasons behind Iran's desire for nuclear weapons, that is of great concern to me, as an American. But really, the reasons Iran wants it aren't all that important when the result leads to massive nuclear proliferation around one of the most unstable regions of the planet.

[C0ckney]

i would prefer to see a world with no nuclear weapons, but proliferation is a horse that has long since left the stable. as has already been said, many states have nuclear weapons, but they are all held in check by the threat of MAD. so while i agree it's a concern if iran develops nuclear weapons (and potentially are followed some arab nations), i don't think we should see it as some kind of existential threat.

what concerns me is that people (by which i mean israel, the american right and certain arab nations) are using the iranian nuclear program as an excuse for the regime change that they would like to see in iran. the west was taken to war in iraq by (false, as it turned out) concerns about WMDs, with disastrous consequences. we cannot allow ourselves to make the same mistake with iran.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, if their goal is to prevent American invasion, a safer route would just be "don't harbor terrorists" and "don't build nukes"...those, along with "don't have a communist government" should keep you pretty safe.

No one would care about the Iranian regime if it didn't export terrorism and try to build nukes. There are plenty of tinpot dictatorships that we don't give two ****s about.

[C0ckney]

perhaps because they have a rather better knowledge of history than you HC. the US has been interfering in iran for decades.

[kentonio]

Well, if their goal is to prevent American invasion, a safer route would just be "don't harbor terrorists" and "don't build nukes"...those, along with "don't have a communist government" should keep you pretty safe.

No one would care about the Iranian regime if it didn't export terrorism and try to build nukes. There are plenty of tinpot dictatorships that we don't give two ****s about.

I'm no friend of the Iranian government, but why exactly should America have the slightest say over what kind of government they have?