Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
But do you need any of that? For avoiding a nuclear exchange, all you need is enough people realizing that such an exchange is likely to result in their deaths. It's self-interest that is required, nothing more.
Do you think Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon?
- Thread starter Jabberwocky
- Start date
But do you need any of that? For avoiding a nuclear exchange, all you need is enough people realizing that such an exchange is likely to result in their deaths. It's self-interest that is required, nothing more.
^that's just it, it's a bullshit threat. it produces no bargaining power at all.
it's like going to market and haggling with a vendor by threatening to pull the pin on a grenade. is the discount on the item you're haggling for worth more than your life?
oh wait, i forgot. bad guys are irrational like that, right?
it's like going to market and haggling with a vendor by threatening to pull the pin on a grenade. is the discount on the item you're haggling for worth more than your life?
oh wait, i forgot. bad guys are irrational like that, right?
Two problems here.
Iran sympathizes with islamic extremists, who do not have a nation that could be retailiated against. If Iran gets a nuke it is possible they would give it to extremists who would then use it against the west.
It DOES produce bargaining power. Nuclear brinkmanship can be a very effective tool when negotiation with other nations, (see the cold war).
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
MrGrunge
Bluelighter
^ Are you saying the Iranian government is staffed with suicide bombers?
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Well, it depends. As you said, going to the market and trying to haggle down the price with a vendor under thread of mutual destruction doesn't work.
But if you're heading home from the market and someone threatens to kill you, the possibility that such an act would also result in the death of everyone involved could be a deterrent.
To move away from trying to fit theory into badly formed analogies: Iran has very little incentive to use such a weapon offensively. The only time that worked was in the end of WWII, and that was due to some highly specific circumstances (nukes being considered "bigger, better bombs" at the time, nuclear usage being restricted to one nation, and everyone being more or less pissed off at the target). Nowadays, any nation that decides to be the first to start tossing around nukes faces the very real risk that other large, powerful nations that have nukes will consider them a real threat and act appropriately. The result is very likely to be the destruction of the nation that decided to use nukes first.
Nukes only make sense in a defensive context. If a nation is already facing destruction, then using nukes is rational (any odds are good odds for the damned, after all). Since such an action is foreseeable, such a nuclear arsenal serves as a deterrent. Sure, there can still be conflict and war, but there is a very real deterrent to not have the goals of such conflict be the destruction of the nuke-possessing nation.
A non-nuclear example of this would be South Korea. It's small enough that a surprise attack by the north could have a very real chance of overrunning the country, leading to the destruction of South Korea as a nation. But such an attack is very likely to draw in the might of the US and the resulting destruction of North Korea as a nation. So, assuming NK's leaders don't have their heads up their asses (which is a pretty big if), such a surprise attack is deterred by the threat of total destruction. Saber rattling still occurs, with violence happening in border regions. But such saber rattling has a strong incentive to stay at a level below that of widespread war in the peninsula. (South Korea also has a strong incentive not to take North Korea out - not only would such a war be disastrous economically to South Korea, but China serves a similar role to the US, but for North Korea.)
Last edited:
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
yes
Last edited by a moderator:
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Escher---
But what about the possibility of a nation, such as Iran, making a nuclear weapon and then not use it themselves but sell it to some islamic extremist group, that has NO PROBLEM killing and destroying....in the name of religion. No matter what the consequences are. That has to be stopped from happening.
But what about the possibility of a nation, such as Iran, making a nuclear weapon and then not use it themselves but sell it to some islamic extremist group, that has NO PROBLEM killing and destroying....in the name of religion. No matter what the consequences are. That has to be stopped from happening.
And you think they wouldn't not use one? Cause there President is the most sain man in power right? With his comments about the Holocaust never happening ,or wanting to whip Isreal off the map. The fact the supply weapons and man power to the Insurgency. Even if he would not, there is a very real possibility of them selling it to a group that would. There is no shortage of fanatics in that reagon drooling over the chance to get there 75 virgins.
Why is there an assumption that the channels and money are not already available for terrorist groups to secure a portable nuclear weapon? Nukes have been around for a long time, I can't believe for one second there hasn't been an opportunity before this whole Iran thing. What about Pakistan? I don't see people going ape shit over that.
JD55
Bluelighter
I always thought he was more of a puppet leader kinda like the Queen of England while the Supreme Leader was the person who really ran the show?
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
beta-ketone-sarcasm said:
Okay. Would Iran expect retaliation against a non-state organization who launches a nuclear attack (even if misdirected)? Where might this retaliation focus? How might a very likely nuclear-capable Israel respond?
Iran would need sympathize with non-state terrorists to the point of undermining their self-interest.
ebola
agreed, and kudos for recognising the ww2 a-bombs as being what they were, offensive.
even in the absence of nuclear retaliation, ANY group using nukes on any other would face severe consequences from the rest of the international community. no one would trade or ally with such a group, it's such a taboo.
it just isn't worth doing for anyone
rachamim
Bluelighter
Iran is a nation that arrests and criminally charges pigeons and imagines that Jews invented "Mickey Mouse" to corrupt the world. That country should not be allowed near a pair of scissors let alone nuclear weapons. To add to the worry, it is a Shi'a Islamic government ruled by a Muslim cleric. Take a look at how Shi'a celebrate that most important holiday, Ashura, and then take to heart the fact that Shi'a eschatology views the Armageddon as the best thing that could happen on Earth. Nuclear Weapons? Anyone thinking Iran should have them needs their head examined.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
I think I understand what you're saying, but isn't the Taliban a non-state organization, that was retaliated against for Sept 11? We're still in Afghanistan 12 years later.
I guess my opinion is that Iran would be doing just fine without a nuclear weapon. Noone is threatening to wipe them out, they have tons of oil to sell, and most of their problems with the international community would be resolved if they would just let the inspectors in to have a look. If they're being honest about their nuclear ambitions. They wouldn't have the problems of sanctions if they would just demonstrate this simple thing.
"a nuke gives them more bargaining power with the international community" just doesn't make sense to me. Bargain for what? The reason they have sanctions is because of their nuclear ambitions, and the rhetoric of their leader.
rachamim
Bluelighter
L2R Post #75: 'How is Ashura celebrated?': It begins with flogging each other with leather whips and rattan canes and eventually progresses to a frenzy of stabbing with every celebrant stabbing the other until all are covered in blood. The goal is to inflict pain but not to kill although many deaths take place with those dying being assured of Paradise, as is their "killer." The "celebration" includes toddlers up to elderly and only involves males.
As for sucking blood from penises, something you seem to know about quite well, that may be disgusting to some but it does not simulate an orgiastic killing spree (the stabbings are meant to replicate the murder of Ali and the dssapearance and for some the eath of Hassan). Sucking bloody baby penis however is custom from a time when saliva was believed to be an antiseptic. While once practiced by Jews it is today almost extinct (the custom involved a ritual circumcisor sucking on a male infant's wound after performing a circumcision. A glass or silver tube was placed over the incision and excess blood was sucked off and spit into a spitoon. Glad to see you are up on it but I do hope you are using that tube and not putting your lips on somebody's bloody penis. It isn't safe buddy).
As for sucking blood from penises, something you seem to know about quite well, that may be disgusting to some but it does not simulate an orgiastic killing spree (the stabbings are meant to replicate the murder of Ali and the dssapearance and for some the eath of Hassan). Sucking bloody baby penis however is custom from a time when saliva was believed to be an antiseptic. While once practiced by Jews it is today almost extinct (the custom involved a ritual circumcisor sucking on a male infant's wound after performing a circumcision. A glass or silver tube was placed over the incision and excess blood was sucked off and spit into a spitoon. Glad to see you are up on it but I do hope you are using that tube and not putting your lips on somebody's bloody penis. It isn't safe buddy).
Last edited:
rachamim
Bluelighter
Sarcastic One: You are basically correct but the Taliban was, at that time, a state actor since it constituted the government of Afghanistan. The retaliation, if one can label it "retaliation," was against al Qadah, which WAS the state actor. I agree with your point though.
Wyld 4 X
Bluelighter
I tip the other way because even with the mere presence of US forces around the world, economic stability is maintained. Take this "blanket" away, especially for developing nations trying to establish themselves in the global market, and ruin begins to take shape. But, to be fair, I wish it was not this way. I'd rather have less of our military around the world but at the same time we are such a consumerist nation that we have to have it this way to maintain cheap prices. We are kind of our own worst enemy from a certain perspective.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
SarcasticOne said:
Exactly. The US has tended to invade states in the wake of attacks by non-state organizations. Which states would the US retaliate against in the case of a nuclear strike by a non-state organization?
Exactly. This is what leads me to question the realpolitikal conception of states as rational actors.
I'd like to see the experiment of this blanket swept away, particularly because developing nations tend to be those subject to the ills of American militarism (see Bardo's description of our military adventurism in Latin America).
Zack Wylde for Xavier said:
Macroeconomic conditions of trade with China maintain such in the case of finished goods. I can only see our military presence maintaining stable flows of oil with relatively consistent pricing, and we're not doing so well at that. We will have to learn to live without control over central Asian oil regardless.
ebola