Brown And Disarmament

[Chinahand]

So are you advocating a response to Iran's ambitions and clients like this?

My opinion isn't really important - Iran definitely thought Bush, Netanyahu were, and still worry that Obama does too.

 

Security dilemmas are always difficult to solve.

 

This cartoon is called "After You" and is from 1868.

 

 

The question is what actions will the west take to match any move by Iran - as they can't agree these they are left waiting for the other side to make the move - after you!

[P.K.]

Iran's latest move?

 

Iran 'concealed nuclear facility'

 

Iran concealed the building of a second uranium enrichment plant in defiance of calls for transparency over its nuclear plans, US President Barack Obama says.

Full story here.

[Vulgarian]

Sanctions, blockades etc have an incredibly poor history of being effective - and to muster a proper blockade, or to be able to deter with a thread of conventional warfare takes a huge cost in military equipment, troops under arms etc.

 

Perhaps, but still better than the alternative?

 

I'm in two minds about nuclear weapons. I'm not terribly optimistic that the human race can survive in the long-term if the dramatic population expansion and resultant over-exploitation of the natural world that have occurred in the last century continue unrelented. A global nuclear war might well be the salvation of our pathetic race, and this abused planet, but only if it was waged on a large enough scale. It would have to wipe out about a high enough proportion of the global populace (ideally 100%) to have an impact. Feasible, i would say, given that about half of the world's population is urbanised. Einstein said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones", well that sounds like a preferable alternative to where we are heading at the moment.

 

The more likely scenario however is a nuclear war on a smaller scale, perhaps between two states, with deaths maybe in the millions - not enough to make a significant impact on world population. Other powers would be unlikely to escalate the conflict, not wishing the same destruction visiting upon themselves.

 

So we either have no nuclear weapons, or we have lots and kill everyone!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Apart from the fact that their actions have a role in creating the instability they are currently facing.

 

If they abandoned the bomb (and stopped sponsoring Hezbollah, Hamas etc) they would find the threats they face reducing markedly - Libyia faced an existential threat from the West, and got out of it by changing its behaviour. If it went back to trying to build a bomb that threat would return.

 

It does take two to tango.

But once they have the bomb there won't be any threats. Yes, it does need to end its support of terrorists, but it is a hypocritical argument to make out that Iran needs to stop its support when the United States has provided support to terrorists.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Iran's latest move?

 

Iran 'concealed nuclear facility'

 

Iran concealed the building of a second uranium enrichment plant in defiance of calls for transparency over its nuclear plans, US President Barack Obama says.

Full story here.

Looks like the bullying is going to get even worse now. The more I read the more I am on Iran's side.

[manxy]

With this thread, I've wondered as to what would a 'leader' do if another leader from a different country for whatever reason decided to press the button?

What are the chances that the second leader would retaliate?

If they did retaliate, would the first leader then press as many buttons as possible to other countries, knowing that their country was going to get bombed?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Depends on what country you are talking about, why it happened, and what sort of nuclear capability they have.