And The Next War Is..........

[La_Dolce_Vita]

... they have an opportunity to gain weaponry which will allow them to threaten vast destruction. Don't you see how contradictory that is?!

No, I don't. I don't believe that them having nuclear weapons will probably lead to a better world or think it would probably lead to a more secure Middle East. But it is a possibility. A nuclear balance in the region might prove useful threaten US and UK interests in the Middle East.

 

I don't outwardly support them building nuclear weapons, however, we really cannot criticise their decision to build them when other states have them. It is utter hypocrisy.

 

Your faith in the rationality of religious based revolutionaries who have murdered and imprisoned hundreds of thousands for such crimes as wanting to join together to organise unions or study political ideas at variance to the government's, or have unconventional lifestyles like your own is, in my mind, typical of your incredible nievity.

I don't believe their oppressiveness that results from Islam necessarily means they are not rational in how they decide to employ nuclear deterrence.

North Korea is an extremely oppressive nation state - yet their dealings with the West are handled in a rational manner.

What makes you think that domestic oppression would result in foolish diplomacy?

 

Do you really believe Iranian command and control will be world class? Do you really think that an Iranian bomb will reduce tensions in the Middle East - or increase them with the concomitant risks that a minor issue will tumble out of control

World Class? If you mean by the standards of the United States then no. However, they such luxuries as these will be treated with a very high degree of respect and

 

Your attitude seems to be that an nuclear Iranian regime wouldn't then use the deterent advantage it has gained to be more confident in pushing its agenda on the world stage. Or you seem to say that its fine for them to push that agenda - really?

I expect it would have a stronger agenda on the world scene. But in practice nuclear weapons would not result in an all-round ability to enhance their agenda in the world

 

There is a recognized risk that a nuclear armed state may engage in more bellicos activities believing it is protected under its nuclear umbrella - McArthur very nearly got the US involved in a war with China due to such an attitude - and Kruschov pushed the US to within inches of war.

They are other arguments, more credible in my opinion, that nuclear weapons actually limit bellicose behaviour in view of the possible consequences.

 

Your attitude is well the big boys can murder and war and steal so lets allow the little guys to behave the same. Well let me be blunt - firstly the behaviour of the big boys should be moderated and not emulated, and not all political agendas are the same - your moral relativism makes you see oppression in all things - including voluntary agreements - and you seem to see all oppression as being alike.

And here is where it all comes to because you have this real belief that liberalism can work. That the big boys really can be moderated. It hasn't happened yet, what makes you think it will or even can be achieved.

 

As for emulation, with a number of powerful states having nuclear states, we can hardly criticise those who emulate.

 

I never argued or implied that political agendas are all the same.

 

And I see oppression in what are ostensibly voluntary agreements but which are conducted are very heavy constraints and which result in exploitation.

 

Well its not. If you think the Iraqi people are just as oppressed now as when they were under Saddam Hussein you are wrong. If you think the invasion was all about American control of oil you are missing a big piece of the picture.

 

The Iranian Revolution was a backwards step for Iranian Society - those that have pushed that revolutionary agenda want to export it and encourage those with similar faiths to be converted to revolution. They plot that revolution in Lebanon, in the Gulf, and seek to widen their influence and power. That is a bad thing. LDV are you really going to claim otherwise. That revolution will reduce human freedoms, enslave people in religious dogma and use violence to achieve it.

 

If you approve of such things then you are like that vicar who praised the faith and loyalty of the Taliban. Just because you want a revolution - though you have no idea what you hope to achieve in that revolution - doesn't mean you should support all revolutionaries. Allowing the Iranian regime to gain power is inimical to your ideas of fraternity or whatever collectivist mumbo jumbo you ascribe to.

For all this hot talk Chinahand, assuming what I think about things you are wrong. I agree with what you have wrote in the above paragraphs.

 

But to summarise, the nuclear powers have no legimitimacy in forcing Iran to stop weapons production.

[gazza]

I don't outwardly support them building nuclear weapons, however, we really cannot criticise their decision to build them when other states have them. It is utter hypocrisy.

 

o yes you can.

 

how about this.

a 50 year old gent all ways a shooting fan a bit of rabbiting etc, applys for a gun.

a 21 yearold who has been convicted of many a crime, beating robbing etc, but says he like to take the sport up etc.

 

well you can pick and choose the ones you give that to, would you in your right mind give that 21 year old the gun i dowt it.

its not hypocrisy its called commen sense

[La_Dolce_Vita]

a 50 year old gent all ways a shooting fan a bit of rabbiting etc, applys for a gun.

a 21 yearold who has been convicted of many a crime, beating robbing etc, but says he like to take the sport up etc.

Is that supposed to be some comparison between the nuclear weapons states today and Iran?

 

Is that the most that the UK and USA, for example, are culpable of, shooting rabbits? Why not elaborate some more on the leisurely pursuits of these countries?

 

And you assume that there is something or person that these people or nations are applying to in order to get these things. But there isn't this situation with nuclear weapons. There is the NPT. But as I mentioned, those who most wanted anti-proliferation are the same ones who haven't made the slightest efforts to disarm nor to create conditions where such disarming could be more easily achieved.

[manxy]

I actually tend to side with LDV on this one especially with the hypocritical way nations 'sort of say', 'It's ok for us to have Nuclear weapons of mass destruction, but we cannot allow you to have them' (I'm not saying I want them to have them, but it is still hypocritical)

 

Personally, I'd prefer if there was no nuclear WMD's, but it seems to me like a game of chess. It's possible to have a stalemate, but the end game is to win and dominate the game wherever possible by strategically placing the pieces in positions of power. Anyone who moves into a vulnerable position is taken although one has to ask at what cost and was it done to manoeuvre pieces out of position for the killer move later?

 

I am concerned however, that the game might mean sacrificing many pieces to win at all costs and it could well mean that the pieces are thrown away or chucked up into the air, as if to say 'If I can't win, then neither can you'. This may happen and could very well depend on who is at the board at the time and if they're up to the task of diplomacy, but one always has to look out from those who help by the sidelines, as there's other players who're looking at a much bigger board and bigger prizes.

[bluemonday]

Iran test-fires advanced missile

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8415489.stm

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am concerned however, that the game might mean sacrificing many pieces to win at all costs and it could well mean that the pieces are thrown away or chucked up into the air, as if to say 'If I can't win, then neither can you'. This may happen and could very well depend on who is at the board at the time and if they're up to the task of diplomacy, but one always has to look out from those who help by the sidelines, as there's other players who're looking at a much bigger board and bigger prizes.

Your analogy is confusing me a little. Can you explain in a different way?

[manxy]

I am concerned however, that the game might mean sacrificing many pieces to win at all costs and it could well mean that the pieces are thrown away or chucked up into the air, as if to say 'If I can't win, then neither can you'. This may happen and could very well depend on who is at the board at the time and if they're up to the task of diplomacy, but one always has to look out from those who help by the sidelines, as there's other players who're looking at a much bigger board and bigger prizes.

Your analogy is confusing me a little. Can you explain in a different way?

The way I saw it was that Irans leaders wanted to play the big game where only those who had nuclear weapons were allowed to join. Without this threat, countries wouldn't be able to play threatening scenarios or demand equality of changing rules, regardless whether it be for egotistical use or for threatening posturing and without them, would therefore appear to be insignificant or of little consequence to the bigger players.

 

My concern therefore was regards to threats by other nations/countries towards Iran (once Iran has the capability of Nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction) as they as Muslims may respond in total defence of its lands, by pushing the little red button and therefore obliterating any type of force or action on its playing fields. (Throwing the pieces into the air)

Defence of Muslim Lands link

 

If Iran does gain Nuclear weapons capability, then the bigger players might then start using the smaller nations as pawns who would probably be regarded as expendable and if mass destruction was caused to them, then the bigger nations lo and behold, would throw out their generous help and assistance package in all its various guises to gain favouritism and any other 'bits and pieces' that came with it as a bonus.

 

So that's the chess game as I see it and probably Iran would be the one who would cleanse it's borders and lands, regardless of the cost to itself. I hope I'm well wrong

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well there isn't a game with nuclear weapons, not at present. I don't know quite you vision of things is, but the game in the world is one where nation states seek to follow their interests, often in competition or with resistance to other nation states. Apart from at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have been used to deter other states from doing things that would harm or impinge on their interests. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and China don't use their weapons for deterrence at present, or rather they don't have serious threats that would involve resort to nuclear deterrence. With India and Pakistan it is a different matter.

 

If Iran has such weapons, it would primarily be to elevate itself in terms of involvement in international matters and be a more powerful Middle East player in the game of international diplomacy. Their voice in discussing and deciding matters in the Middle East will be given greater weight due to the power that these weapons offer. But it wouldn't increase it a greatly.

 

Yet in an environment when their government is given threats and being undermined by elites in the West, a nuclear weapon is something of a insurance option were it to be threatened with invasion.