Nuclear program in Iran tied to Pakistan

[RussSchultz]

But we simply ignored them while they continued on the road to get nukes

What, exactly, makes you think we ignored the problem, other than you believing so?

First off, I remember quite a bit of negotiation and posturing in the news in the past year and a half.

Secondly, even if there hadn't been anything in the news, what makes you so sure nothing was going on. Are you consulted in all matters of foreign policy? If you are, then why didn't you tell us we were in talks with Libya? That would have been interesting to talk about.

 

[Natoma]

Hmm. North Korea has 2-3 nuclear bombs, where a year ago they didn't. Doesn't seem to be the result of any diligent diplomatic discussions would you say? And if you call what the Bush Administration was doing with North Korea over the past year and a half negotiation, then we are pretty doomed. Again, why all the bellicose language toward Iraq and no public admission of discussion toward North Korea? They were both a threat no?

You point to Libya. Well there's an instance where it seems there was some discussion on the matter. Haven't seen that wrt North Korea. Now I will tell you this much. If NK comes out tomorrow or sometime soon and says "We are dismantling our Nuclear Weapons and our ambitions for Nuclear Weapons," then you have a point. Until then, there is no proof other than the administration is ignoring the situation. I simply do not have the faith in this administration's policies as you seem to mr. texan.

 

[RussSchultz]

So because there hasn't been the desired outcome, you are concluding the problem was ignored?

Regardless of all the North Korea in the news!?

 

[Willmeister]

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.

Good luck. Iran has four times the population of Iraq, covers a larger area and is less urbanized than Iraq. The USA can't even control Iraq even though:

a) the Kurds run the north, and
b) the Shiites in the south are not attacking US or British troops.

So, the vast bulk of Iraq's population isn't fighting occupation yet still a few tiny groups groups manage to bog the Coalition down... No way in heck the 'Coalition' could ever control Iran. Bush managed to resurrect Rafsanjani's shattered political career with his Axis of Evil speech. What do you think the Iranians would do if the US actually invaded? You'd see a much stronger grassroots resistance to occupation.

Same pretty much with Syria...

So despite all the big talk, Bush ain't gonna invade even if Iran actually successful explodes a nuke...

[edit]

Let me rephrase that because Bush has never intoned concrete action. No way the USA will invade Iran. N-O-N-E.

 

[Natoma]

So because there hasn't been the desired outcome, you are concluding the problem was ignored?

Regardless of all the North Korea in the news!?

This administration hasn't shown any ability to do anything quietly or diplomatically. I seriously doubt they'd be in talks with North Korea right now without the rest of the world knowing.

And where is North Korea in the news save for their monthly admissions to the media that they have a few bombs and are making more?

 

[pax]

There wont be further military action before the next election. And I doubt anything afterwards short of another 9/11 which is unlikely.

ION Had a long chat with my cousin whose an investment banker with HSBC this weekend at my granmothers funeral (not a sad thing as she was very old and ailing for some time). Hes into asset back financing. He expects the economy to boom next 2 years. Saying that there are concerns over overall levels of debt. No idea what the psychology of debt will do to the market tho beyond 2 years. He says its manageable over the long term but its gotta stop being piled on.... he had an intersting point of view... He veiws the only realistic taxation is of fixed assets (property taxes) and sales taxes. He says if we eliminated incomes taxes and moved to the other forms of taxation that in fact it would lower taxes for lower income earners as property is owned by the wealthy almost completely on a national basis. And unlike capital you cant move it easily.


I did argue that capital should be taxed in the 0.1% range in lieu of income and sales taxes but he says if you dont implement it internationally its very easy to avoid paying it. I think he was right but he wasnt aware that currenty speculation (tobin tax) was already in efefct in britain where he works. Tho it brings in a modest 300 million a year as most of the trades are offshore and cant legally be taxed apparently. I thena rgued voer a wordlwide currency and he saysthe mechanism of currency specualtion woudl be replaced by another or more enhanced form of speculation. Probly stocks and bonds... So it wouldnt change anything. I always thought it would free up capital myself...

Oh well not like we can expect any of these changes to happen and for history to play itsefl out on that stage anytime soon...

 

[ByteMe]

This administration hasn't shown any ability to do anything quietly or diplomatically. I seriously doubt they'd be in talks with North Korea right now without the rest of the world knowing.

And where is North Korea in the news save for their monthly admissions to the media that they have a few bombs and are making more?

What do you call Lybia? or Iran? I think these are diplomatic success's so far. I got the impression that in fact there was alot going on behind the scenes with NK.

My bet is something major is going to happen with NK before the election (one way or another, and I think China will be involved).

 

[Natoma]

I'd call Libya a "We're going to beat your ass down if you don't comply" military intervention, *not* diplomacy. Iran on the other hand is aggressively pursuing their nuclear capacity along with North Korea. How would you call Iran a diplomatic success?

As I said earlier, military intervention can only take you so far. It apparently worked with Libya backing away out of fear. But what do you do with a country like NK or Iran that has a deterrant, or is close enough to openly defy our military might?

I have seen no proof that this administration can do anything right when it comes to diplomacy. I hope I'm proved wrong for our sakes as americans, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

 

[ByteMe]

I'd call Libya a "We're going to beat your ass down if you don't comply" military intervention, *not* diplomacy. Iran on the other hand is aggressively pursuing their nuclear capacity along with North Korea. How would you call Iran a diplomatic success?

As I said earlier, military intervention can only take you so far. It apparently worked with Libya backing away out of fear. But what do you do with a country like NK or Iran that has a deterrant, or is close enough to openly defy our military might?

I have seen no proof that this administration can do anything right when it comes to diplomacy. I hope I'm proved wrong for our sakes as americans, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

What? We have not bombed Lybia recently. Iran is starting to cooperate with international inspectors.

Don't rule out military force with NK yet. If that wacko starts shelling SK then he will get a world of hurt from the USA military.

 

[Natoma]

Libya: Fear

Iran: When?

 

[DemoCoder]

Let me rephrase that because Bush has never intoned concrete action. No way the USA will invade Iran. N-O-N-E.

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. The majority of Iranians were born after the revolution, and most of them are sick of the theocracy. The massive country-wide protests and election results prove this. If nothing is done, I predict the hardliners will be out of power before the end of the decade. The only thing stopping their overthrow is the Guardian Council and the control of the military, otherwise, the elections would have already removed them. Either the GC will relax their arrests and nullifications of democratric election results, or I think eventually they'll be a coup.

The US role would be minimal, as it usually is (compared to the overabundance of credit assigned to the CIA for coups). Providing assurance that the new government would be recognized by the US/UN, diplomatic relations, non-aggression, etc and information gathered via SIGINT, such as the location of hardliners, their itineraries, satellite maps, etc

The invasion of Iran would be counter to US interests, since it would only strengthen the hard-liners, whereas, left to their own devices, the hardliners are sowing the seeds of their own removal.

 

[Deepak]

Actually no.

If we don't have WMD, we don't have a deterence threat. Without a deterence threat, a country like NKorea could invade SKorea in a convential strike without fear of reprisal from the West. A country like Iraq could invade Kuwait without fear of reprisal. A country like Afghanistan, which was full of religious maniacs, could unleash armagedon on the west and end the western world and set humanity back to the stone ages.

Military supremacy IS important for the west to have, being the more responsible set of countries currently available Our sensibility to human rights, and democracy make it imperative that we have some leverage against rogue states. When Nuclear weapons are concerned, then its obvious that an equal threat would need to be matched.

I think nukes are highly overrated. If you have a vast conventional force like US you dont really need nukes. Why do you think rogue states or infact any armed force fears US, not bec'se of nukes certainly. Its bec'se of the SUPER conventional superiority US has. NO-one is even within striking distance....and it will remain the same for 20-30 yrs.

What is stopping North Korea from striking SK, not US nukes...it is rather devastating US conventional capability which is housed right next door.

And US certainly doesn't need thousands of nukes which is an OVERKILL IMO, and why does US keep/need so many warheads....not bec'se of Iraq/Iran/NK etc...US conventional forces can decimate them easily....It needs bec'se of USSR (previously) and China (presently), so P5 nations are themselves responsible for their nuke arsenal and not any rougue state.

 

[London Geezer]

Of course having 6000 nukes is useless and in the long run it might even become a hazard, you never know what might happen. Unless they keep them in fear of a huge asteroid hitting the planet, so we can destroy it before it destroys us, i don't see a reason to have all those warheads. And even then, 6000?? jeez, even the biggest asteroid would melt under all that power. In the end some of those warheads are so powerful they could easily wipe out our civilisation or at least damage the vast majority of our cities, changing the environment for like 10,000 years with less than 100 of them.

It just looks like a big werehouse full fireworks waiting for the next idiot to walk in smoking a big cigar and blow it up with the rest of the northern emisphere... (just a metaphore, of course nukes can't be detonated that easily, but u see my point)

 

[Sxotty]

Deepak, if you read my posts you will see why we do need nukes. And we do.

As I said already we don't need as many as we have. BTW where did 6000 come from anyway just a number you like london-boy? We need to run the nuclear material through some power plants though and get rid of it.

edit:
Natoma, may be right though Russ. None of us have inside info, all we know is that whatever was done was not succesful.

 

[London Geezer]

Deepak, if you read my posts you will see why we do need nukes. And we do.

As I said already we don't need as many as we have. BTW where did 6000 come from anyway just a number you like london-boy? We need to run the nuclear material through some power plants though and get rid of it.

Well it's half out-of-my-ass half from a recent report i remember reading, saying Russia reduced its arsenal from 10,000 to around 6000.
It's just a number, assuming the USA is at least at the same level...

I just don't agree a country needs nukes to establish itself as a super-power that's all. I'm just not convinced what can i say :|

 

[notAFanB]

I just don't agree a country needs nukes to establish itself as a super-power that's all. I'm just not convinced what can i say

to be a superpower the nation needs a certain degree of security, nukes are one such method of deterering attacks.

 

[London Geezer]

to be a superpower the nation needs a certain degree of security, nukes are one such method of deterering attacks.

Yeah i mean it's no use repeating the same things all over again, i'm just not convinced.
I don't think nukes provide security as you guys put it. I'm just not convinced that if the western superpowers were to get rid of their nuclear arsenal, they would suddenly be attacked by "rogue" dictatorships. I think that idea is very far-fetched. In the end it will never happen, so no one will ever know.
Actually in a certain sense, i believe that if the western superpowers were to rely less on fear, sanctions, embargos and started helping each other and the poorer countries, the need for "defense" (which would not be provided by nukes anyway) would not be there, because no one would have a thing with the US and the other superpowers
Don't know, it's just an idea, don't jump at my throat, i'm very tired and vulnerable now so don't have a go at me or i'll start crying...


Does Japan have Nukes BTW?

 

[notAFanB]

they would suddenly be attacked by "rogue" dictatorships. I think that idea is very far-fetched.

suddenly? hell no your forgeting the conventional forces at their disposal. at an immediate disadvantage in a full scale war - yup.

I don't think nukes provide security as you guys put it.

technically no, they provide deterence.

I'm just not convinced that if the western superpowers were to get rid of their nuclear arsenal, they would suddenly be attacked by "rogue" dictatorships.

I'd give it a few years before China starts throwing their weight around.

Actually in a certain sense, i believe that if the western superpowers were to rely less on fear, sanctions, embargos and started helping each other and the poorer countries, the need for "defense" (which would not be provided by nukes anyway) would not be there, because no one would have a thing with the US and the other superpowers

*sniff* you're faith in the compassion of mankind brings a tear to my eye

sadly I believe stupidty is an overiding occurence.

Does Japan have Nukes BTW?

not sure, can someone clarify what Japan's polic is on nukes?

 

[London Geezer]

*sniff* you're faith in the compassion of mankind brings a tear to my eye

I know! I'm in a very peacey-sweety-honey mood at the moment....
Just let me have a coffee to wake me up a bit...

It would be kinda funny if Japan did have any nukes, seen how bad they must feel about it.

In the end i think that as much as we have a fear of rogue countries attacking us at any given time (very pathetic idea IMO), think about who started the last 10 major wars in the last 40 years. Think about who dropped not one but 2 nukes on civilians. Think about who has been the prime user of WMD.

It aint bloody Palestine...

Want a hint? South of Canada and North of Mexico...

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...

 

[Sxotty]

Japan has no nukes

This is because we the US say if anyone nukes Japan you take ours thanks.


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.