Deterrence assumes rational behaviour. May be crazy, but I think religious fervour does not fit that definition.
Not at all. Remember the last war was the Kargil conflict, which occured a year after both sides had officially done successful nuclear tests and declared that they had nuclear weapons, in which Pakistan crossed the border and occupied part of Indian controlled Kashmir. People were freaking out at the time that nuclear war COULD occur because tensions became so high after that incident. Fortunately, nothing happened but it demonstrated that deterrence isn't foolproof. Secondly, remember Pakistan was selling nuclear secrets the whole time. A.Q. Khan, the chief Pakistani nuclear scientist, sold much of the knowledge base that formed North korea's nuclear program. Also, he sold some stuff to China and could have done more but thankfully he was exposed. Iran would most definitely probably do the same. Deterrence doesn't answer the two objections I had earlier. Iran will probably sell off the secrets to areas that are even less stable and secondly, new nuclear states are also the least secure in terms of preventing accidental launches. Remember, Russia in the early 90s nearly started a nuclear war because the thought a Norweigan rocket was a US-launched nuclear weapon. Thankfully, they had early warning satellites and were able to confirm that it in fact was just a rocket for weather observation. States like Iran, that are on ultra hair-trigger alert may have actually fired a weapon in that situation. Finally, Iran's leadership hasn't proven itself to be trustworthy. hell i don't trust any new nation with nuclear weapons. And most importantly they have NO RIGHT to these weapons. They signed away that right when they signed onto the NPT. There simply is no excuse and no way to justify their posession of weapons.
Lol, its also considered the most likely place for a nuclear war. Considering the time frame for the four wars was over 50 years, and the nuclear standoff began in '98, your sample size is lacking. Further, Waltz concerns himself mainly with Great Powers, of which Iran is not, he doesn't say anything about Iran. And even if the stability argument worked vis-a-vis Israel and Iran (two countries not likely to go to war since neither have projection capabilities and they aren't next to each other), it de-stabilizes the rest of the ME between Iran and Iraq, Saudi Arab, and the Gulf States. And we aren't even getting into the other significant dangers of proliferation (miscalculation, accidental launch, theft, irrational/leadership etc.).
I understand that Iran wasn't previously very forthcoming about their program, but the IAEA themselves haven't able to find any evidence of 'illegal' or 'unauthorized' activities that would qualify Iran for a referral to the UNSC for sanctions...the only thing the UNSC has been able to do is issue statements, but legally they have zero ground for taking punitive action against Iran. My whole point here is this: legally speaking, Iran has not violated any accords, and everything they have done so far has been within their full legal rights; this is not a matter of opinion, I am simply stating a fact here. Now as you correctly stated, the controversy/pressure applied to Iran is a result of a perception of a 'lack of credibility' on their part, it's essentially about a fear by some (prominently the USA, Israel, and the EU) of what Iran's real intentions are...but the case against Iran so far has been hypotheticals and fear-mongering, with very little substance. Oh you're wrong! Their missile technology is pretty advanced, at least enough to achieve the objective of setting every major oil field in the region ablaze and completely shutting down the straights of Hormuz and sabotaging any operation in the Persian Gulf. You can thank Russia, Pakistan, and North Korea for helping Iran out... I don't think they need nor should they pursue nukes, provided that their conventional military is powerful enough to deter any attack. However, having nukes would prove a lot more cost-effective in the long term. Moreover, they have waived their right to developing nuclear weapons by signing the NPT. They voluntarily did so, by the way, not under any duress or threats. May be it was a cover to deflect any suspicion regarding their work on nuclear weapons, who knows, but again that would be more specualtion. It's a complicated situation with a lot of ifs and hypotheticals, but let's keep in mind that moving forward this has huge implications for the world over, not just the US or Israel or the EU.
So we are in agreement that the argument that they 'need nukes to protect from a US invasion' is false.
I think you are over exaggerating the capabilities of the Iranian army. Moreover, you are unappreciative of the U.S’s advantage in its air warfare. That along with U.S intelligence… can cripple that country within days. In My Opinion.
I disagree, simply from the perspective that if you're going to flaunt the US, now is the time to do it. They know our military is stretched by Iraq, and that the US public is not going to react well to attacking Iran. Certainly we can do a bombing campaign or something like that, but from what I understand, they've done a great job scattering their plants and equipment, and putting it under bunkers and all. So that would force us to use the targetted nukes, which again would not go over well. If Israel were to do the attacks, it would ignite that entire region that much more - so (if the US has any say), the US won't allow that. It's also worth noting that all the way up until North Korea came public with what they were doing, our estimates of their time frame were way, way off. Certainly that played a part in it, but US rhetoric and threats severely declined once they announced. Whereas the US was constantly making threats and demands of North Korea before their announcement of claiming to have a bomb, now the US is doing everything in back channels. Essentially, Bush backed off the tough talk of not negotiating, etc. How much of that is just for public consumption and how much was a real change in our posture is a bit up in the air. But, for example, while air strikes were considered long ago, you'll never hear that as an option now.
Well, I don't think we're incapable of striking Iran - so I don't think its a good idea. If we aren't capable then I guess there's nothing to worry about, the EU will take care of it . I don't remember being shocked when the North Korean's disclosed. Well, it would hardly make sense to threaten strikes to stop their development of the bomb after they'd developed the bomb.
When the discussions started back in 2003, US intelligence believed they were still several years away, from my understanding. When they started hinting at having more materials than previously believed, that's when timetables suddenly got revamped (at least publicly). Well, it depends if you believe its better than NK has 1 bomb than 50, I guess.
as i've said all along and provided evidence, iran is a rational actor which does what is in its self-interest, which makes its behavior predictable inflammatory rhetoric comes out of most govts, including the us which called iran a member of an "axis of evil" and then has plans to possibly use nukes against iran analyze the actions and not the rhetoric and you'll see the validity of my point and i do agree with kenneth waltz that nukes do promote peace and stability you guys can deal with all the hypotheticals you want, but no two sides that have had nukes have gotten into a war
I do think it's a false premise, yes. However, it's hard to deny that possessing nuclear weapons would provide the best venue to virtually 'guarantee' security from a U.S. military strike. But no, it's not necessary.
No, no underestimation of U.S. air dominance here, you misunderstood me there. I am not saying that Iran will or can beat the U.S. in a conventional warfare, I am only saying that they can achieve a certain 'deterrence' level that would make it cost-prohibitive for the U.S. or Israel or any other potential adversary to launch a military strike against their sovereign land. Hope I somewhat clarified my position.
Creepy, good work in unmasking the extrem bias of the sources Hayes is using. Pipes is certainly notorious for his irrational racist hatred of Muslims.
thanks and if we want to talk about irrational leadership, remember the israelis threatened to use nukes when they were getting beat down in the initial stages of the 1973 arab-israeli war, not to mention the example i brought up from the us earlier, so please don't tell me iran is irrational based on the words of their president alone, because if that's the measuring stick we use, then there are plenty of examples on all sides to go around
Or it could becoming a self fulfilling prophecy and cause a US military strike. Lol, well you've got somebody else to play with in the sandbox, glynch. Good for you.
Oh no. Heresy, Iranians might be rational, even sort of human like , and not mad men who would gladly go to their collective deaths in a hail of nuclear weapons if they could just kill one red blooded American or gentle peace loving Israeli. Creepy, you have to be a crazy mullah, yourself. Who else could think such thoughts. Again if we could see Iranians as people and get over the zenophobia, it might help us see how two fundamentalists nuts, Ahma.etc sp and Bush play to each other with the gullible masses following. Hopefully despite a track record of crusading and recklessness with other people's kids, the Bush Adminstration is just saber rattling to keep the headlines from being dominated by the latest Bush lies or fiascos in Iraq. Sadly like a current or ex drunk doubbling down at the table to try desperately to salvage the bacon, Bush might want to launch another another war. It is encouraging that Tony Blair will not be on board.
I can't tell you how many times I've been called a supporter of the Mullahs or a Mullah myself, because of the positions I've taken...my reply has always been that I'm only concerned with the facts and resisting the temptation to resort to the same sort of name-calling...even Deckard, who is supposed to be one of the more "fair" people on here from what I have heard, seems to get pretty riled up when I deal with the political realities in Iran as oppossed to the rhetoric we hear in the mainstream media on a daily basis
