Nuclear program in Iran tied to Pakistan

[Sxotty]

The West will never, ever, give up WMD and will always take steps to maintain their monopoly on state violence. That's why Israel struck Iraq's programme in the early 1980s so as to ensure their monopoly on violence is maintained. What would happen suddenly if Israel was no longer the only power in the region with nukes? Suddenly, they're going to have to stop invading, siezing and otherwise stop being the regional bully.

Exactly

I am trying very hard to come up with a response that is not rude.

Lets see saddam invaded Kuwait, but that isn't state violence, he killed 100s of thousands of people but that is state love. NK is actively starving and repressing its people thru violence, but it is just friendliness. Look at the genocides in Africa, to even imply you need WMD's for state violence is so incredibly stupid that I am awestruck any coherent person would say it.


London-boy, quite simply you are wrong. Sorry but that is all there is.

If you get rid of WMD's then western countries would need to spend thousands of times the current amount on national defense to have a credible deterent to a country dropping a nuke on them. And well we don't have thousands of times the money to spend. That is all there is to it. If you want to talk of decreasing stockpiles then fine, we certainly don't need as many as we have. If relatively stable democracies did not hae WMD's and rogue states did the world would have fallen into chaos already.

edit: changed drop WMD program, to get rid of them, droping can be confusing.

 

[Clashman]

Pay a little closer attention Scotty. That's not what they were saying.

 

[Sxotty]

Really, WMD are only good at one thing: playing "my dick is bigger than yours".

What exactly is he saying then?

To be honest you ought to let them say what they mean, and not jump in saying well according to a 3rd party investigation they mean something else entirely. And if you do choose to go that route at least say what they do mean according to you.

 

[London Geezer]

Otty, i mean pretty much the same thing as u......

One country does not need WMD to cause mass destruction...

I'm saying that WMD are only psychological weapons, since a country can still cause a lot of damage even without them.

Isnt it what u're saying?

 

[Sxotty]

Yes, that is what I am saying.


But there is one fundamental difference, I beleive it would be irresponsible for nations (like UK, US) to give up WMD's b/c it would make it so that true bullies could do more damage. Too many people view the US as a bully, and perhaps (well we do) we deserve it, however when comparing us to countries like Iraq, NK, China, and others we come out like paragons of virtue. As long as irresponsible despots pursue WMD's, which will be as long as they exist since they crave power, responsible countries must have a credible threat to counter them. And IMO it is cheaper to have a credible threat from WMD's than conventional weapons. Our WMD threat may seem uncredible since everyone knows we wouldn't use them except in the most dire circumstances, but that means we won't likely be placed in dire circumstances to begin with and thus everyone is happy.

london-boy I don't know if there is a reason to have this discussion, I do not know whether certain people can ever understand the relevance of WMD's, but once they were taken out of the bottle so to speak there will never ever be any going back, for ill or good that is the way it will be.

edit:
BTW I think Bush borders on being an irresponsible despot, well maybe not quite that bad, more like a greedy power hungry sort of fellow, but in any case in a country where the leaders are bound by law, and the citizenry is fairly free egomaniacs still do not present nearly the problem they do in other locales.

 

[London Geezer]

Oh ok ok i get it now.

I don't know, i mean i'm not sure anyone can "be wrong" on this issue because it will never happen, and we're just talking out of our asses so to speak.

In the end i'm not sure (see, i'm being very conservative cause we just don't know) whether rogue countries are bowing down to western supercountries because of the latter's nuclear power...

I don't see Saddam having nightmares over USA's nukes becasue everyone knows one will never be dropped (again) on civilian soil.

You do know that if the USA, as good as their reason might be, were to drop a nuke on even the most evil city out there, EVERYONE (me included) would just go mental.

I'm saying it's psychological...

 

[London Geezer]

I just think that having what, 6000 (or is it reduced now) warheads sitting around just for the fuck of it is plain stupid...

I agree this discussion is rather useless and very much wrapped in dreams and speculations that cannot make for a serious and coherent discussion... (not much different from any other thread on here then )

 

[Sxotty]

london-boy you missed what I was saying.

Saddam attacked Iran he used WMD's. If he would have had a nuke he would have threatened and if necessary used it.

If all major powers got rid of WMD's like you suggested, then dictators would think they had died and gone to candy land, where they could run around destroying countries on a whim. If NK had 100 nukes, and no one in the world had any then they would control the world. That is why it is silly to say that we should just all throw our wmd's away.


It is really not dream talking and speculation, saddam did use WMD's recently.

And like I said I agree that having the amount we have is excessive, and that we should continue to reduce the number, as there is no need for that many.

edit:
I'm done

 

[London Geezer]

yep i'm off too... GONNA GO SEE ROTK AT LAST!!!!
might continue this discussion tomorrow

 

[Willmeister]

If all major powers got rid of WMD's like you suggested, then dictators would think they had died and gone to candy land, where they could run around destroying countries on a whim.

But then certain countries wouldn't bother with expensive WMD programs. Why pay and maintain a system you'll never, ever use? But right now, Bush sent a clear message. Don't have WMD, we invade. Have WMD, now we'll talk. These nations have caught on, did a cost-benefit analysis and decided upon that, like Libya did. Like Iran did.

 

[RussSchultz]

But right now, Bush sent a clear message. Don't have WMD, we invade. Have WMD, now we'll talk. These nations have caught on, did a cost-benefit analysis and decided upon that, like Libya did. Like Iran did.

Really? I thought he said: if you pursue them, we'll invade. Otherwise, we'll talk. Why do you think Libya and Iran are talking now?

We couldn't have invaded NK ANYWAYS, so stop using that as a strawman.

 

[junkheap]

Iran actively pursued them, bush didn't do anything but toss threats. End result, the same as in iraq. Libya know to have a chemical weapons program and nuke program which now the states finds out was further along than anticipated.

Iraq was winable with minor casualties, Iran is not, either is NK. Iran could and probably would fire wmd at israel. It would cause a bigger mess. Not to mention Iran is a lot bigger than iraq is.

WMD are forever going to be pursued because it gives the country a total sense of defense. If you attack me, i will use it. All the known countries that have nukes now, would never(i know never say never) use them in a war because they have far much more to lose with economic sanctions, inspections and general hatred, than someone like iran/nk.

All the arab states see nk with its nukes, and the US doing nothing about it. I really doubt US would have attacked iraq if that idiot saddam had nukes. It is unfortunate that it boils down to that, but haveing the wepons is a successfull deterent. All these countries know it, and unless they install a democratic governement or try and join the rest of the world(libya) they will always chase it. And in general i am talking about the middle east, where most of this is happening.

 

[Natoma]

But right now, Bush sent a clear message. Don't have WMD, we invade. Have WMD, now we'll talk. These nations have caught on, did a cost-benefit analysis and decided upon that, like Libya did. Like Iran did.

Really? I thought he said: if you pursue them, we'll invade. Otherwise, we'll talk. Why do you think Libya and Iran are talking now?

We couldn't have invaded NK ANYWAYS, so stop using that as a strawman.

I dunno. We thought Iraq had a strong fighting force and would bog us down in urban warfare. We thought they had tons and tons of chem-bio agent, and maybe a nuke, given the African Uranium story. You don't think they would have used those WMD against us, Iran, and Israel if they had them? What made Iraq any more palpable as a target than NK?

 

[Fred]

B/c NK was deemed able to be reasoned with, Iraq the opposite (after 10 years of watching them violate UN protocol)

The US is watching Syria, Libya and Iran with a very close eye. If they step out of line, I don't think this government will have any problem in doing the same thing we did to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fortunately the strong arm seems to have worked for Libya. Which should be counted for as a win for the Bush administration foreign policy.

As far as the nuke debate, it should be obvious what the benefits having it are. If I was a despot, (playing civilization III for instance) its a no brainer, since I can always attack but need not defend.

 

[Natoma]

B/c NK was deemed able to be reasoned with, Iraq the opposite (after 10 years of watching them violate UN protocol)

I accept that as a very valid and levelheaded response. Certainly better the the responses I was getting in another thread on Saddam being arrested.

However, we ignored North Korea for a good year while building our case against Iraq. And that to me was far too dangerous because every month you'd hear "We're just about near a nuke. We want to talk or we'll get a nuke!" and you'd hear nothing from the administration but "Iraq is going down." NK imo went the nuke route heavily, along with Iran, because of our Iraq policy. I really think we should have been engaged in deep discussions with the North Koreans to stop them from getting a nuke when we had the chance. Now they've got a couple and we have no other recourse.

We should certainly use this opportunity to talk with Iran and keep them from getting the bomb as best as we can.

The US is watching Syria, Libya and Iran with a very close eye. If they step out of line, I don't think this government will have any problem in doing the same thing we did to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fortunately the strong arm seems to have worked for Libya. Which should be counted for as a win for the Bush administration foreign policy.

Yes I was quite happy to see the Libya back away from pursuing nukes. They probably weren't close enough to warrant an all out display of defiance like NK and Iran have done. However, strong arm tactics can only take you so far. Diplomacy is certainly required. Unfortunately our current administration has not shown that they can exercise a diplomatic arm as well as they have exercised the military arm.

p.s.: Of course the west needs nukes. We need them as deterrants against madmen who know that if they attack us, they're obliterated completely. M.A.D. still works in this day and age, even without another superpower in the world, even if it isn't my preferred means of keeping the nuclear peace.

 

[nelg]

p.s.: Of course the west needs nukes. We need them as deterrants against madmen who know that if they attack us, they're obliterated completely. M.A.D. still works in this day and age, even without another superpower in the world, even if it isn't my preferred means of keeping the nuclear peace.

I have wondered about this. With madmen like Osama and his ilk, is the concept of M.A.D. valid. IMHO no . Today the only useful course of action is trying to prevent the development and acquisition of WMD in the first place.

 

[RussSchultz]

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.

 

[Sxotty]

Russ is right about that NK has enough conventional weapons to decimate Seoul. They have an amazing amount of artillery

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr031111_1_n.shtml

Of the KPA's approximately 1,100 long-range artillery systems, it is estimated that 710 are 170mm SPGs and 390 are 240mm MRLs. Of these, approximately 80% (876) are deployed south of a line running east-west through Pyongyang and Wonsan.

The use of chemical warfare (CW) rounds - which the KPA possesses for all artillery systems greater than 107mm in diameter - would present a significant increase in the threat posed by these systems - especially to civilians. A single 240mm MRL battalion firing CW rounds could quickly saturate a large area with lethal concentrations of CW agents and then maintain that level of concentration for a prolonged period of time. The panic that would likely ensue among the civilian population would undoubtedly be momentous. Based upon known KPA tactics, operations, procedures and defector interviews an estimated 5-20% of the rounds initially available to DMZ corps level and 620th Artillery Corps artillery units are likely to be CW projectiles.

As noted previously, the figures presented here represent the optimal KPA long-range artillery threat to Seoul alone. If all the KPA's artillery of 100mm or more, capable of firing across the entire DMZ, were calculated together they could achieve an initial rate of fire of approximately 300,000-500,000 rounds per hour.

IMO nothing has changed, one man would have a hard time making a nuke, and a country won't use one because of MAD. NK won't do anything but bluster b/c they know that they would lose whatever they did. (that is assuming that the leader has his head together a bit)

 

[nelg]

IMO nothing has changed, one man would have a hard time making a nuke, and a country won't use one because of MAD. NK won't do anything but bluster b/c they know that they would lose whatever they did. (that is assuming that the leader has his head together a bit)

If I lived in South Korea, I would not like to leave anything to assumption.

 

[Natoma]

Russ, Sxotty

The threat to South Korea, Japan, China, and in effect ourselves, from North Korea, as well as the *known* threat of nukes and chem-bio agent, should have sent us immediately into the breach of negotiations *before* we went to Iraq. Or at the very least, concurrent to the buildup to Iraq. But we simply ignored them while they continued on the road to get nukes. Frankly it felt like we were going to Iraq to stop them from getting WMD, or at the very least destroying their WMD, while letting NK get WMD when they were screaming they were about to get it. That disconnect has always bothered me tremendously.

nelg,

Agreed.