Nuclear program in Iran tied to Pakistan

I doubt they would have to. It looks like providing intelligence, backing, and assistance to a domestically organized coup d'etat would be the more optimal solution.

And here it is. This is exactly what my Iranians friends fear, yet another US intervention usurping their self-determination in favour of America's own interest. Then somehow insinuating that what America will do is for the average Iranian. Total hogwash. All they have to do is look next door into both Iraq and Pakistan...
 
Sxotty said:
london-boy this is how it works. No a country wouldn't attack us, but they would attack south korea, Japan, or any country near them that they wanted and we were allied to. If we had no nukes China would attack taiwan, and we wouldn't do anythin except moan and sniff about how hard life was. And eventually yes we too would get attacked, or become Vassals to kim jong-il or something.


Mmmmm... And how do we know this really is how it works? I'm not even sure how our presidents or prime ministers know how it works, and i certainly don't expect us mortals to know how this works.

If we knew how it really worked, then the problems would not be there. We would have found a solution by now. Instead i think the powers that be don't fully understand it themselves how it works, therefore solutions are hard to come to, as we are seeing now.

Don't know, it looks like your way of thinking is very much stuck in the last centuries, i'm not sure any country wishes to invade another country in full WW2 style, today. The countries that tried it (can only recal Iraq invading Kuwait at the moment) got their arses kicked big time (more than 10 years later, but still). And it doesn't look like the fear of other countries nuclear arsenal was strong enough to stop them anyway, cause they still invaded.

A country that is illegally occupying (invading) another is Israel, in fact, and we all know who's behind it.

See, all this talk about "rogue" countries, then the biggest war-mongerers are western countries!
 
london-boy said:
Don't know, i've been very anti-US lately, very weird, i've been pretty much pro-US all my life up until some months ago... Must be what i'm eating...

It is just an age thing, people social views are very tied to where they are in their life, and your will change again.

In any case the US has not been the prime user of WMD's it is you good ol europeans. The US used 2 nukes. ok 2. Think how much mustard gas was used in WWI. OH BOY! WMD's, yes that is what it was sorry to burst your glorious facade (like that facade instead of bubble).

Your arguments go something like this everything we say is conjecture so my opinion is as valid as yours. It is an interesting perspective, but it would be much more convincing if you had some kind of evidence to back up your assertions. For example, everything we say is conjecture, so IMO the US has no nukes left and just pretends they do to make people like you get all excited. There no evidence whatsoever, but it could be true.

Willmeister said:
Total hogwash. All they have to do is look next door into both Iraq and Pakistan...

In any case Will what exactly did we do to pakistan?
 
Don't know, it looks like your way of thinking is very much stuck in the last centuries

his way of thinking is timeless, it's called self preservation.

i'm not sure any country wishes to invade another country in full WW2 style, today.

you are very much mistaken. look at iraq.

The countries that tried it (can only recal Iraq invading Kuwait at the moment) got their arses kicked big time (more than 10 years later, but still).

and why was this?


it doesn't look like the fear of other countries nuclear arsenal was strong enough to stop them anyway, cause they still invaded.

faulty reasoning. they banked on inaction or at least enuough to ensure that they would be entrenched. to wit an nuclear arsenal only acts as an deterence factor to those that intend to war on you. not others (whom we may presume have a certain degree of extendability in all this).
 
My point about WMD's was that as countries have become more secure they are used less. The europeans used a lot of WMD's in WWI, but in the aftermath agreed not to do it anymore because it was terrible. Similarly after the two small a-bombs were dropped people became pretty unexcited about using nukes anytime soon.(yeah I know people will berate me, for trying to minimalize, which I am not, I am trying to make you think about how devastating a large H-bomb could be)
 
TOLD U! Don't go all worked-up on me, we're just discussing! :D

Sxotty, i said "lately". WW1 is not "lately" in my book and of course it was not included in my reasoning...


Really, i'm so tired i don't even know what i was gonna say... Last night's ROTK killed it for me... Finished at around midnight, havent slept much and i need to go to the gym after work, go shopping, start packing up...

Going off-topic...

I'm off...
 
london-boy said:
Sxotty, i said "lately". WW1 is not "lately" in my book and of course it was not included in my reasoning...

Sorry you must be more specific that lately to you incldes WWII, but not WWI, if I would have known I would have provided more recent examples, such as Sadddam.

Out as well...cya later m8
 
Will, and why wouldn't we want to influence elections over there?

You can preach about sovereign nations and what not, but many leaders are simply NOT desirable, and often it comes down to backing a lesser of two evils.

For instance, the Shah of Iran vs the Ayatolahs. The peaceniks screamed about our support to the former for years and years, yet when eventually he was overthrown we got something far worse (that directly influenced us)

So yes, we should butt into the affairs of certain countries where ramifications of inaction exist, and yes we do know whats best for them, or at least, know what is ultimately NOT good for them.
 
Willmeister said:
I doubt they would have to. It looks like providing intelligence, backing, and assistance to a domestically organized coup d'etat would be the more optimal solution.

And here it is. This is exactly what my Iranians friends fear, yet another US intervention usurping their self-determination in favour of America's own interest.

And how is a coup dreamt up and executed by the Iranians a US intervention? Here it is, the wacko-left idea that all coup d'etats are organized and run by the CIA, and the conspirators are merely pawns, rather than the instigators with the CIA sucked into low powerplays by various factions. You think it is the spooks in the US that are responsible for making Iranians dissatisified with the theocracy? That the CIA is paying thugs to beat up reformers and arrest students in some elaborate plan to cause a coup?

The reformist Iranians, now the majority, hate the theocracy. If the theocracy keeps arresting and punishing reformist politicians, journalists, and businessmen, and these people organize a coup, it will be an Iranian intervention, not a US intervention. If the CIA iprovides ntelligence to the coup faction, the credit for the coup still isn't the CIAs. It probably still would have happened with or without the assistance, but perhaps with more or less bloodshed. Of course, in leftist wacko circles, if the CIA sends even 1 USD to a guy on foreign soil, any political consequences are attributed 100% to the CIA. Greece is a classic example. The US sends a vague telegram saying "coup is ok with US" and some Greek-Americans send some cash to try and campaign for local politicians, but until the recent declassification, leftists have for years been asserting 100% responsibility to the CIA.

Likewise, in some convoluted reasoning, if some low level US bureaucrat says "we have no opinion if you invade Kuwait", that constitutes an implicit US backed invasion of Kuwait by Saddam.
 
RussSchultz said:
Natoma said:
What made Iraq any more palpable as a target than NK?
About 1 million less armed men, not within firing distance of 8 million unarmed civilians participating in the most vibrant economy in the far east.

You don't need a nuclear weapon to destroy a city when you're within artillery range.

Something had been bugging me about the 1 million armed men bit regarding NK. But I couldn't put my finger on it until a few minutes ago.

10 years ago, North Korea had roughly 1 million men in their army, and a vast artillery aimed at South Korea and Japan. Kim Jong Il inherited his current standing army from his father when he took over in 1994 after his father died. The Clintons told the NK to back off or we'd bomb them into the stoneage, even with the chance that NK would attack their neighbors and our 30,000+ troops stationed in SK. Why? Because the idea of NK with nukes was simply untenable, even at the risk of SK, tens of thousands of our troops in SK, and maybe Japan.

You told Willmeister that NK is a strawman because we can't attack because of the conventional artillery. But frankly, it isn't, as evidenced by Clinton's work in 1994.

NK has a history of rattling their sabers and then backing away once they get food and/or money, but we've been playing a pretty damn dangerous game by simply ignoring them as they now have multiple nukes. Since they seem pretty damn desperate for cash, I would not put it past them to sell their nukes to the highest bidder, i.e. any terrorist in the planet with a wad of cash, i.e. Osama Bin Laden.

Some people are always poo pooing Clinton's tack on foreign policy, even though it was damn good in many spots. However in the case of NK, it seems he had the balls for something other than Monica. ;)

So in essence, it would seem the argument that we can't attack NK because of their conventional military threat to SK and Japan is rather moot, given history of course.
 
ByteMe said:
Natoma said:
Libya: Fear

Iran: When?


Iran is now coperating with the nuke inspections.

That's definitely good to hear. Though since they're not under UN mandate to cease their nuclear ambitions afaik, they're not exactly dealing with quite the same circumstances as Iraq was.
 
Natoma said:
The Clintons told the NK to back off or we'd bomb them into the stoneage, even with the chance that NK would attack their neighbors and our 30,000+ troops stationed in SK. Why? Because the idea of NK with nukes was simply untenable, even at the risk of SK, tens of thousands of our troops in SK, and maybe Japan.

You told Willmeister that NK is a strawman because we can't attack because of the conventional artillery. But frankly, it isn't, as evidenced by Clinton's work in 1994.

NK has a history of rattling their sabers and then backing away once they get food and/or money,
Ok, so did Clinton achieve what he did through threat of force? Or by paying the blackmail? It can't be both.

Personally, I can't see where you come to the conclusion that it was a tenable solution to attack in 1994, when what we ended up doing was paying the blackmail.
 
Regarding Clinton and the previous deal with North Korea here's an interesting atricle to read that was written back in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030...n-t-shaplen/how-to-deal-with-north-korea.html
How to Deal With North Korea

Many pundits and policymakers in Washington, on both sides of the aisle, argue that the revelations about Pyongyang's clandestine HEU program prove that President Clinton's policy of engaging the North was a mistake. This argument maintains that giving in to blackmail leads only to more blackmail.

Although it is inherently valid, such analysis is too simple. In 1994, the United States was on the edge of war with North Korea. Washington had beefed up its forces in the theater, installed Patriot missile batteries in the South, and was reviewing detailed war plans. The White House had even begun to consider the evacuation of American citizens. The 1994 Agreed Framework, although deeply flawed, represented the best deal available at a far from ideal time. It remained so for several years. And although it has been disappointing on many levels, the agreement has not been useless.

Indeed, it averted a potentially catastrophic situation. Instead of a war (which the U.S. military commander in South Korea, General Gary Luck, estimated would have killed a million people, including 80,000 to 100,000 Americans), Northeast Asia has experienced eight years of stability. This has had vast implications beyond security. In 1994, South Korea's GDP was 323 trillion won; today, even after the 1997 financial meltdown, its GDP is approximately 544 trillion won.3 This transformation would have been unlikely in the face of imminent armed conflict. China has similarly experienced explosive growth, much of which might also have slowed had there been a major confrontation on its porous border with North Korea.

The Agreed Framework also provided the parties with critical breathing room, which has allowed new realities to emerge both within North Korea and among the United States and its allies -- developments that improve the chances for a better, more comprehensive deal today. To cite one example, in 1994, Kim Jong Il had only recently succeeded his father, North Korea's founder Kim Il Sung. Viewed as weak, mentally unstable, and without a power base of his own, Kim was expected to last a mere two weeks to several months. Today, however, he is acknowledged as the only power in North Korea and has established diplomatic relations with scores of nations, including many of Washington's closest allies in NATO and the European Union. This puts him in a vastly better position to strike a deal.

For its part, the United States in 1994 could not have counted on Russia or China to support its position toward North Korea. Today, however, Washington is likely to receive baseline support -- albeit not carte blanche -- from both. Indeed, although there has hardly been unanimity among the outside powers, there has already been evidence of such cooperation, in the form of a joint Chinese-Russian declaration issued in early December stating that the two powers "consider it important ... to preserve the non-nuclear status of the Korean Peninsula and the regime of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

Another benefit of the breathing room created by the 1994 accord is the North's economic dependence on the South. South Korea today is North Korea's largest publicly acknowledged supplier of aid and its second-largest trading partner. Although not as successful as he would have liked, former South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's "Sunshine Policy" of engaging the North has, in conjunction with the North's economic collapse, given Pyongyang a strong economic interest in avoiding a crisis. (Although the numbers are much smaller, the situation is not wholly unlike that between Taiwan and China.) Should the North exacerbate current tensions, the economic fallout would be traumatic, and the loss of South Korean investment could destabilize the North.
 
Well I don't think Clinton did such a bad job really, but I agree to a certain extent it was blackmail, and Russ we never paid it :) We said we would and then never did. At least not the whole deal. In any case Kim Jong-Il reminds me of a spoiled little kid with his guns and bombs going give me what I want or else. Unfortunately he is quite dangerous irrespective of his personal incompetence.

Although looking at the actual capability of the US I think that we could easily win in a battle in NK, but the losses to civillians in SK would be high. A few MOAB's might do some damage do his artillery though.
 
Sxotty said:
A few MOAB's might do some damage do his artillery though.

I don't believe so. There's a huge complex of tunnels north of the DMZ that houses all of the artillery. The MOAB would be almost useless at destroying the artillery.
 
We got the Ayatollahs BECAUSE of the Shah and his abuses and our support for the overthrow of duly elected Mossadegh. And demo coups and the cia and general western support for such isnt the product of left wing nut conspiracy theories its the common history and behavior of the 20th century. Try reading up on it a bit.

Havent you ever wondered that a secret agency as the CIA still manages to make public its involvement with several of the coups that occured in the 20th cent? I mean it IS supposed to be a secretive agency isnt it? So by that definition shouldnt MOST coups have little or no indication that the cia was involved? Tip of the iceberg...
 
RussSchultz said:
Natoma said:
The Clintons told the NK to back off or we'd bomb them into the stoneage, even with the chance that NK would attack their neighbors and our 30,000+ troops stationed in SK. Why? Because the idea of NK with nukes was simply untenable, even at the risk of SK, tens of thousands of our troops in SK, and maybe Japan.

You told Willmeister that NK is a strawman because we can't attack because of the conventional artillery. But frankly, it isn't, as evidenced by Clinton's work in 1994.

NK has a history of rattling their sabers and then backing away once they get food and/or money,
Ok, so did Clinton achieve what he did through threat of force? Or by paying the blackmail? It can't be both.

Personally, I can't see where you come to the conclusion that it was a tenable solution to attack in 1994, when what we ended up doing was paying the blackmail.

Reading the article silent_one provided is basically what I would have responded with. We were on the precipice of war in 1994, looking into the abyss. It was most certainly through use of force and "almost war" that we got NK to comply. If the Clinton Administration was that close to going to war with NK, they obviously felt strongly enough about NK having nuclear weapons to risk the casualties. No one wanted to go to war, so what happened? That dirty dirty word, Diplomacy, was used. Something it seems this administration avoids like the plague.

We compromised. We promised not to destroy their country and they promised to stop making nukes. You could call it co-blackmail basically.

Besides, for someone who supports the Bush Administration's unilateral tack on Iraq because of Humanitarian reasons (and *cough* WMD *cough*), I'm shocked that all of a sudden, avoiding war at all costs matters to you. Aren't all Bush Administration supporters, especially the ones from Yee-Haw Texas, nothing but warmongers? :p
 
It was most certainly through use of force and "almost war" that we got NK to comply.
Maybe it was just the opposite: they got us to give them what they wanted through the use of force and almost war?

We compromised. We promised not to destroy their country and they promised to stop making nukes. You could call it co-blackmail basically.
And as for what we "traded" for in 1994, it wasn't just non-agression. It was non-agression, plus we'd build them a "safe" nuclear reactor, plus we'd provide them with oil, and food.

We could trade the same things again, and end up in the same place in 10 years, but all that does is reward the blackmailer.

That dirty dirty word, Diplomacy, was used. Something it seems this administration avoids like the plague.

Because we haven't already traded the same away, doesn't mean we haven't been engaged in diplomacy.
I'm shocked that all of a sudden, avoiding war at all costs matters to you.
Its not avoiding war at all costs, its avoiding potentially millions of deaths.

There is no good solution that I can see, militarily, to North Korea, that doesn't end in calamity for at least one thriving economy.

Aren't all Bush Administration supporters, especially the ones from Yee-Haw Texas, nothing but warmongers?
Well, no. We tend to think through our actions and weigh the pros and cons and come to a conclusion. Its called pragmatism.
 
Back
Top