****
update From the Guardian UK, “Secret services say Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear missile”:
The Iranian government has been successfully scouring Europe for the sophisticated equipment needed to develop a nuclear bomb, according to the latest western intelligence assessment of the country’s weapons programmes.
Scientists in Tehran are also shopping for parts for a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe, with “import requests and acquisitions … registered almost daily”, the report seen by the Guardian concludes.The warning came as Iran raised the stakes in its dispute with the United States and the European Union yesterday by notifying the International Atomic Energy Authority that it intended to resume nuclear fuel research next week. Tehran has refused to rule out a return to attempts at uranium enrichment, the key to the development of a nuclear weapon.
The 55-page intelligence assessment, dated July 1 2005, draws upon material gathered by British, French, German and Belgian agencies, and has been used to brief European government ministers and to warn leading industrialists of the need for vigilance when exporting equipment or expertise to so-called rogue states.
It concludes that Syria and Pakistan have also been buying technology and chemicals needed to develop rocket programmes and to enrich uranium. It outlines the role played by Russia in the escalating Middle East arms build-up, and examines the part that dozens of Chinese front companies have played in North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme.But it is the detailed assessment of Iran’s nuclear purchasing programme that will most most alarm western leaders, who have long refused to believe Tehran’s insistence that it is not interested in developing nuclear weapons and is trying only to develop nuclear power for electricity. Governments in the west and elsewhere have also been dismayed by recent pronouncements from the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has said that Holocaust denial is a “scientific debate” and that Israel should be “wiped off the map”.
The leak of the intelligence report may signal a growing frustration at Iran’s refusal to bow to western demands that it abandon its programme to produce fuel for a Russian-built nuclear reactor due to come on stream this year.
The assessment declares that Iran has developed an extensive web of front companies, official bodies, academic institutes and middlemen dedicated to obtaining – in western Europe and in the former Soviet Union – the expertise, training, and equipment for nuclear programmes, missile development, and biological and chemical weapons arsenals.
“In addition to sensitive goods, Iran continues intensively to seek the technology and know-how for military applications of all kinds,” it says.
The document lists scores of Iranian companies and institutions involved in the arms race. It also details Tehran’s growing determination to perfect a ballistic missile capable of delivering warheads far beyond its borders.
It notes that Iran harbours ambitions of developing a space programme, but is currently concentrating on upgrading and extending the range of its Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 750 miles – capable of reaching Israel.
Iranian scientists are said to be building wind tunnels to assist in missile design, developing navigation technology, and acquiring metering and calibration technology, motion simulators and x-ray machines designed to examine rocket parts. The next generation of the Shahab (“shooting star” in Persian) should be capable of reaching Austria and Italy.
World War III is now officially open for business…
(h/t Drudge by way of Allah)
****
update 2: via DEBKAfile, so all cautions apply: “Retired General Ali Duba, known as father of Syrian intelligence and loyal aide of Presidents Assad father and son has fled to London from Damascus”:
This defection follows the blunt charges leveled against Bashar Assad by former Syrian vice president Khalam Haddam last Friday, and the UN inquiry commission’s demand that the Syrian president make himself available for questioning in the Hariri assassination.
The plot thickens.
Me, I’m going to stock up on firearms and throwing stars…
(via Allah)
Thanks for the good news, Jeff.
I know Goldstein, but what the hell are we going to DO about it!
That nutcase over there wants to build the Islamic Bomb for Christ sake!
Good thing I picked up a little Dari while in Afghanistan. Might come in handy when I have to pick up a little Farsi…
tw: blue. I might be.
A buck says that Cloudy writes a 600 word essay the essence of which is that we can’t believe this since we didn’t find any WMD in Iraq.
…what the hell are we going to DO about it…
Buy stock in Aerospatiale? They’ll be shipping all that high-dollar stuff, after all.
Regards,
Ric
tw: local. All politics is local, it says so right here in the Big Book. ::shrug::
…oh, and sell IAI short. Killings to be made here, folks.
Regards,
Ric
God hlep me I have to ask. Do you think he should be stopped Carl?
I wouldn’t mind if God helped me, either.
My Spidey Sense tells me they’re about to get a really big foot up their ass.
Jeff, you are being taken in by the lies of the neocon cowboy warmongers in British, French, German and Belgian intelligence and their right-wing lackeys at The Guardian.
Carl? Actus?
BELGIUM LIED, MULLAHS WERE CAPTURED AND MADE TO WEAR UNDERWEAR ON THEIR HEADS!
Don’t be distracted by Belgium waffles.
Actus? Carl?
That has a nice ring to it.
Tillman?
Oprah, Uma. Uma, Oprah.
Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
This could be a problem.
tw: She
So that explains the reports of NATO coming up with plans against Iran. As long as they could only hit Isreal they believed in talk, talk. Building a missile that could hit EU that different.
But three problems lay ahead.
1) Russia Bring cash and we will sell you anything.
2) China who has the same motto, but always with hints other motives.
3) EU unoffical motto “ We Surrender. since 1939”
C’mon, I can’t blieve that none of the folks from the left, who are so normally full of wsidom, have no opion on whether Iran should be allowed to build and test nuclear weapons. What do you guys think?
Actually, 6Gun, they’re convinced “History of the World, Part One” is a documentary, and want to murder Jews in space as well as in night clubs and pizza parlors.
Really? I thought their unofficial motto was “Surrender, Collaborate, Claim to Have Fought for the Resistance”. It’s much pithier in Etruscan, of course.
I dunno. Sounds kinda inconclusive to me. Wouldn’t want to rush to war…
Tom, I wouldn’t stock up on ammo and shuriken. I’d stock up on Persian food.
Because 30 minutes after that missile lands ANYPLACE, good luck trying to find a nice plate of fessenjen and safron rice.
Ever.
Again.
I think you already answered that, Corvan:
Me too.
This is the biggest story of the last 5 years, if not the last 25.
Seriously, Actus, Carl and all the rest of you. None of you have even a visceral reaction to this story? Does Iran having the capabilty to unleash thermo-nuclear armageddon seem like a bad thing to you? A good thing? An indifferent thing?
Poo on actus and Carl. I want to know what Pusillanimous in a Time of Rambos says.
Regards,
Ric
tw: feeling. I have a feeling a frantic search through the Talking Pointsâ„¢ is going on right now.
Pusillanimous in a Time of Rambos is on record here somewhere advocating for Iran’s right to have a nuke.
Because you see, Israel has a nuke. So it’s only fair. Cycle of violence and all that…
The silence seems sort of deafening.
LA. Apparently LA has a large Iranian ex-pat community. Unless the mullahs target LA, they’ll still be around.
At least Pusillanimous is willing to state what she (or he) believes, as God-awful wrong as it maybe. This is one of the problems with having a talk with a leftie. Every time you ask him a question you have to wait a half hour for him to go find out what KOS thinks.
I don’t know why you guys are so worried, the liberals will save us with their signs, giant puppets and slogans. We must only have faith. Wait, scratch that, liberals don’t believe in faith. We must only have, um…patience as they come up with their plan for dealing with radical Islamists and their ilk.
Is that crickets I hear?
Let’s keep this as simple as possible. We’ll ask the questions in easy stages. Should Iran have nuclear weapons? That’s question one.
So does the cognitive dissonance the left’s experiencing right about now.
Which brings us to two outcomes vis a vis the left:
1. The west forces Iran to back down—not something a Hilary Clinton would or could do, by the way, even if she is a guy. Leftists smugly go about their business, deny cause and effect, and carry on biting the hand that feeds them. Fucking shameless, utterly mendacious.
2. The shit hits the mideast fan and half the place is glassed. Leftists spend about as much time watching the flames and bodies and tacitly admitting this is a bad thing as NPR did acting patriotic in the wake of 9/11. (Yes, I remember it well—about five weeks.) Then back to socializing the planet and lying thru their Marxist teeth. Fucking shameless, utterly mendacious.
Either way, we’re wasting our time expecting honesty out of liberals.
Uh oh.
I hope the intelligence was gathered with the proper court orders. Maybe we can send Joe “Yellowcake” Wilson back to check it out.
Send in a UN team headed up by Ramsey Clark.
Should Iran have nuclear weapons is the easy question. They get harder after that…
Yes, there are many ex-pats in Los Angeles, right up the street from me near UCLA (the Westwood section of L.A.). Nice restaurants they have, and they’re good neighbors, for the most part. They’ll return to Iran if democracy can win the day there.
I cannot believe that Iran will be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. I fear that they might, but the world community, composed primarily of sane people regardless of politics, will not sit around while it happens.
Consider that it might be good that Ahmadinejad is president, because his nuttiness only serves to bring Iran into greater international focus. He’s such an unhinged fundamentalist blowhard, he’ll be assassinated by his own people, or we’ll go in there and take care of the situation (the nuclear capability) before it can get out of hand, this time with full international support.
I can’t help but notice that none of you thought about the NSA story this hard, as your arguments make clear…
Or Charlie Rangel.
tw: Red. Heh.
See Brain, it’s this full support thing I’m wondering about. No one from the left who normally comments on this site has even been able to bring himself, or herself, to say that Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad thing. If they don’t think it’s bad how can they support doing anything about it?
…he shit hits the mideast fan…
Details matter.
Back in ‘90 we shipped several Patriot batteries over there. Israel has some bright people and some good spies, and they don’t mind taking gifts apart and seeing if they can improve them.
What if the Iranian missile has a French guidance system? Where will it go when it surrenders to the Israeli antimissile?
Is the Prophet’s Mosque bombproof? All that high-quality Bin Ladin Co. cement…
And keep in mind that the only thing that’s really changed here is that the reports have come out, and they’re not from the Chimperator and his cronies—good EUcrats, every one of them. The situation hasn’t really changed radically, and nothing about this is new except the confirmation from independent sources. So be patient. It takes time to spin up a good Talking Points™ campaign. I’m sure the Left won’t disappoint us.
Regards,
Ric
tw: area. Lots of juicy targets in the area.
Perhaps the left went to bed early tonight?
update From the Guardian UK, “Secret services say Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear missile”:
Huh?
That story was in the GUARDIAN???
*running to window to check for flying pigs*
When did the Guardian become interested in sounding the warning about a Middle Eastern nation??? Did I miss something?
BTW, for the European 3Ls, I would have demanded from the Iranians a detail explanation of why a country sitting on an ocean of oil oh-so-desperately needs a nuclear power plant. That SHOULD have been the very first question asked when the clowns at EU opened negotiations with Iran.
Don’t forget plenty of ammo for the firearms, Jeff. And don’t bother with shuriken, grab some good Bowie knives. Or K-Bars. And a sharpening stone.
Yeah, and they’ll eat all the saffron rice, dammit. Nuke them too before it’s too late.
Here’s hoping the fallout doesn’t contaminate all the basmati…
The question is still open. Should Iran have nuclear weapons?
Corvan,
Yes.
(Just ask the Iranians, they’ll tell you the same.)
corvan,
Cool it. Go have a beer and look up some webcomics (I like The Whiteboard, but I do have furry leanings
.
Like I said, patience is required. Even as we speak, strawmen are being frantically stuffed, non sequiturs are being prepared, and dozens, if not hundreds, of Lefties are leaning against the capstan-bars, trying to get the Spin Machineâ„¢ up to speed. Give ‘em some slack. They’ll do all right.
Regards,
Ric
Should Iran have nuclear weapons?
No.
That’s question one.
Answered in the negative, there are no other questions, only the action of rolling up sleeves and making sure Iran never acquires nukes.
Darleen,
I think that, you think that. What do Cloudy and Actus and Carl and the rest think? Why won’t they say?
Oh…btw, and OT, but the 12 miners in W.VA have been found alive.
Miracles still do happen.
Pardon the interruption.
Now, I don’t understand Hmong, but that HEV TOV HEV WHORISHNESS sounds hotâ€â€spammy hot.
(Which is to say, this handwriting font is almost as illegible as the one in my hand.)
Anywayâ€â€
11. Dinner at Hugo’s w/ Jimmy Carter.
Andâ€â€
The only Iranian I know personally is a fine young exile lass, related to the old Shah in some way I never understood and don’t remember, who, shortly after our meeting, went back “home,” I guess to dig up some buried family treasure and smuggle it USA-ward. She’s not back yet. So…don’t bomb it before I can hit it, oh vile neocon bloodsuckers.
Do it right after.
Now back to our regularly scheduled dishonest “arguments.”
Boner,
You may be too late.
<fx: a deep, ominous thrummmmm fills the cavern, with occasional dips and dissonances as the War Machineâ„¢ lifts the Arrows of Deathâ„¢ into position, occasionally slowing as one of the badgers who’ve been living there since late Fall gets caught in the gears. DONALD RUMSFELD strides across the floor with a big smile on his face, occasionally looking up as one of the gantries slots into position with a clank, and raising his fist triumphantly>
RUMSFELD: At last! At long last! You will fly soon, my pretties! BUUUUUWAHAHAHAAAAAA!
<On a catwalk looking over the main floor, GEORGE BUSH and CONDI RICE watch their Evil Minionâ„¢ go about his preparations. CONDI looks worried>
CONDI: Should we be doing this? I mean, it can’t be good for him.
BUSH: Oh, don’t worry. It’ll be a load off his mind, you know, he’s been waiting since the Ford Administration. [gestures] Captain, I need that.
<a USAF CAPTAIN approaches carrying a mil-spec Game-Boy on his back; it has a depleted uranium case and weighs forty-one pounds. Wordlessly he turns his back, and BUSH grabs the controller>
BUSH: OK, all set but I need the passwords. What’s the main password, Condi?
<Ominous clanks as the dome begins to open>
CONDI: You made them up. Didn’t you write them down?
BUSH: [patiently] They’re passwords, Condi. You aren’t supposed to write passwords down. C’mon, tell me.
CONDI: I don’t have them.
BUSH: I bet you do. You wrote them down, and have the paper hidden in that sexy leather jacket. I’ll just check… [reaches]
<fade to black as we dolly back from the scene on the catwalk. Just before the cut we hear>
CONDI: Stop that! I’ll tell Barbara!
[endit]
So you see, the machine is in motion. If you can get in touch with her, tell her to wear a glare-orange headscarf. That’s the ID for avoiding “friendly fire”, and somebody might notice.
Regards,
Ric
The only real question is who takes care of this: Israel or the U.S. And they did the last one.
The important question is: What kind of play will Tim Robbins write if we act on Iran?
See Brain, it’s this full support thing I’m wondering about. No one from the left who normally comments on this site has even been able to bring himself, or herself, to say that Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad thing.
Iran has the same right to nuclear weapons that the US has, perhaps more these days – since it has a greater need for deterrance. Whether that is good or bad is up to the reader.
“What is that you have, Johnny?” the teacher asks, leaning over him. Johnny squirms, but she grabs his hand.
“Oh, look!” she trills, in that tone of synthetic cheerfulness that would make Gandhi wish for a straight razor. “Johnny has brought nuclear weapons to class. I’m sure he’s brought enough for everyone, haven’t you, Johnny? It’s only fair to share.”
Well, that was fairly predictable.
I meant PIATOR, of course.
I guess the next question is do we have the same right to blow them the fuck up as they do to nuke Israel?
PIATOR,
Just something to consider, in essentially all game theoretic models of deterrence, increases in the number of actors causes an increase in the odds of nuclear war (I can’t remember if the curve is exponential or what, but it does remind of increasing network complexity as the number of nodes increases).
I don’t want to get into the more moral normative interpretation of this. But I will note that the basic premise of your argument, that all actors have an equal right to the posession of nuclear weapons, runs in to problems at this point.
There is no arbitrary upper finite limit to the number of possible actors, but suffice it to say as the number becomes larger the probability of nuclear war approaches one, while the carrying capacity of each actor (on a finite globe) continues to drop.
This then leads to the conclusion that all actors have the right to nuclear weapons (and given the comment about deterrence, implies that it in fact might be more justifiable). This then implies that nuclear war as a certainity is also a right to all actors whether they want it or not.
We are then left with the proposition that any nuclear weapons are as bad as everyone having nuclear weapons.
However, this conclusion, I do not believe, at least, is borne out by the moral consequences of MAD in the bipolar world. Granted, the solution of MAD is not optimal (from a moral normative point of view), but I think it is safe to say that stable peace is better than massive unremitting warfare.
So, at the end, the basic assertion you make about the moral right to possess nuclear weapons yields a logical fault.
As you hadn’t the opportunity to explain what supports your argument without generating the same flaw, I would welcome any clarification (or wish to revise your statement).
Apologies (addendum)
We are then left with the proposition that any nuclear weapons are as bad as everyone having nuclear weapons.
Should read:
We are then left with the proposition that aggressive, unprovoked nuclear war cannot be distinguished, as a right, from the right to possess nuclear weapons.
Ah, moral relativism pops up its ugly head! America has nukes, so Iran needs nukes as well.
Or is that Phoney? God, it’s hard to tell, both of them being full of crap and all.
PIATOR has no arguments beyond “fairness”. Sitting on a remote little island in the Pacific, wrapped in the shining armor of Absolute Rectitude and wielding the gleaming sword of Total Equity, he(?) finds it occasionally expedient to inform us, from the lofty pedestal he inhabits, what is necessary for “fairness”.
Normally this means dead Americans, but he does occasionally allow dead Jews as well, as here.
Regards,
Ric
I am kind of curious as to what they need the nukes to deter, since the only modern threat was Saddam, they should be more secure right now than ever before.
I guess the next question is do we have the same right to blow them the fuck up as they do to nuke Israel?
Why exactly do you think Iran has a right to nuke Israel, B Moe? Are you some sort of anti-semite?
But I will note that the basic premise of your argument, that all actors have an equal right to the posession of nuclear weapons, runs in to problems at this point. […] So, at the end, the basic assertion you make about the moral right to possess nuclear weapons yields a logical fault.
Learn to read. I said Iran had the same right to nuclear weapons as the US, perhaps more if you buy the need for nuclear weapons as a means of deterring superior conventional threats. Your comment is based on a “slippery slope” progression which doesn’t contradict what I actually wrote.
PIATOR,
Could you do us both a favor and simply make a point without having to resort to the “Learn to read.” Given that this is the internet, intonation doesn’t come across as well as we would hope in regular conversation. But there’s no particular need to be snide in bold typeface.
Past that, the progression does not contradict what you wrote. In looking back at my comments, perhaps I had made the error of axiomatically assuming that unprovoked nuclear war was not a universal right.
Or, if I may be allowed to try to clarify:
Extention of the right to possess nuclear weapons, if granted the status of a universal right, almost certainly leads to unprovoked, unrestricted nuclear war (owing simply to uncertainties arising from friction and complexity). I do not hold that unprovoked, unrestricted nuclear war is a universal right.
It seems to me that these two parts go hand in hand. If indeed the slippery slope progression doesn’t apply to what you actually wrote, I apologize for not seeing this, and ask that if you could clarify this for me.
Since Iran has been specific in their desire to eliminate Israel, and as I stated above they do not need nukes as a deterent to any real threat, I foolishly assumed you were rational enough to understand that stating Iran has the right to develop nukes is implying they have the right to nuke Israel. They have no other need for such a weapon.
BMoe,
An argument could be made that Iran would pursue nukes to prevent them from becoming the next Iraq. In fact, that’s the lesson a great number of countries drew from Iraq ‘91.
I’m going to make a prediction that the left’s new talking point will be that Iran only feels emboldened to pursue nuclear arms because Bush has overextended our troops by fighting the war in Iraq.
Diplomacy, you see, would be working right now if Bush hadn’t screwed up and removed the credible threat of military action against Iran. Not that they’re for military action, of course, only the threat.
Or in other words: Bush’s fault! Bush’s fault! Bush’s fault! See what happened, wingnuts? While the Chimperor was busy playing in Iraq’s sandbox with his puppetmaster, Karl Rove, he ignored the threat from Iran! If he had used some diplomacy instead of spending all that time killing Iraqi children and taking vacations then this wouldn’t have happened. Now, thanks to Dear Leader, our troops are spread thin and Iran knows it!
TW: Expect. As in, I can expect a predictably childish reaction to this matter from the left.
Phoenician has done the moral equivalence thing already – Iran and the U.S., one and the same, yep. Someone pushing an old woman out of the way of an oncoming bus is no different from someone pushing an old woman into the path of an oncoming bus – THEY BOTH PUSH OLD WOMEN AROUND!
Now, with trope 1 stated, it is necessary to proceed on to trope 2. Demonstrate how the post and commentary proves that Yanks are serfs, and sheep. Insertion of “Baa, baa” sound effects helpful, but not absolutely necessary. As a final variant, resort to trope 3, pronouncing authoritatively on American culture and history from the omniscient standpoint of Christchurch and the complete immersion in things U.S. that this affords.
Of course, this should be prefaced with a studied “Hmmmmm” containing a link to a news story about “Homeland Security” agents forcing, at gunpoint, a hapless undergrad to eat, page by page, a copy of Das Kapital. Because that happens in Bush’s America. A lot.
PIATOR-
who do you think is more likely to have a stable government over the life of a nuclear weapon? The US or Iran?
Who do you think would be more likely to use a nuclear weapon? Consider other weapons available to each country that they may use in lieu of a nuclear weapon.
Do you think Iran will build a missile that could reach the US, in order to deter the US from invading? I don’t think so. Who do you think Iran would target- who do you think they could target? Does Iran have a ‘right’ to target a third country to deter the US?
How able do you think the Iranian government is to keep nuclear weapons and/or materials out of the hands of non-state actors? Who do you think is more likely to maintain control of nuclear material? The US or Iran?
What say we give nukes to the Maori, just to annoy PIATOR? In particular, we should give them to some Maori group that’s still POed at the European settlers. We’ll see just how long that “everyone should have them” lasts. BTW, whatever happened to the Left being opposed to nuclear proliferation? I’m beginning to suspect that if Bush came out tomorrow & announced that he’s really pro-choice, the Left will demand that Roe vs. Wade be overturned…
Extention of the right to possess nuclear weapons, if granted the status of a universal right, almost certainly leads to unprovoked, unrestricted nuclear war (owing simply to uncertainties arising from friction and complexity). I do not hold that unprovoked, unrestricted nuclear war is a universal right.
Extension of the right to bear arms almost certainly leads to homicide with firearms. Your argument is that, since homicide is not a right, bearing arms is also not a right. Would this be correct?
I foolishly assumed
You did indeed. In the future, speak for yourself rather than for me – your ability to represent my positions honestly or accurately is completely lacking.
stating Iran has the right to develop nukes is implying they have the right to nuke Israel.
Nope. Do you believe that claiming someone has a right to own a gun implies they have a right to murder someone?
Phoenician has done the moral equivalence thing already – Iran and the U.S., one and the same, yep.
Nope. One of the two has used two nuclear weapons in war, has invaded numerous other countries this century, and is developing several new types of nuclear weapons with the stated aim of making their use on the battlefield more palatable.
Do you think Iran will build a missile that could reach the US, in order to deter the US from invading?
Not inconceivable (remember the space programme bit? Anyone able to get into orbit can bomb on a global scale.)
However, threatening to vapourise a US carrier group or most of Saudi Arabia’s oil fields can also serve as a deterrant.
We’ll see just how long that “everyone should have them†lasts.
Please quote me as stating that everyone should have nuclear weapons, liar.
What I have said, and have restated, is that Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as the US, and possibly more since it has a more pressing need for deterrance at present.
PIATOR,
Did it ever occur to you that just perhaps some folks just might need deterring? Like maybe a government run by religious nut-cases who openly preach genocide and have been supporting terrorists groups for nearly 30 years now?
Piator- why is that the one question of mine you answered? I doubt they could nuke a carrier group- too much of a moving target. Do they have the right to nuke SA as a deterrent?
Actually, the problem with this discussion is that the argument isn’t really if Iran has the ‘right’ to develop a nuke, but whether it is desirable for the rest of the world if Iran develops a nuke. Which is why the other questions I asked are the types of issues the IAEA, the EU, the UN, the Arab Union, and other countries will consider, rather than who has the ‘right’ to develop nukes.
Piator- why is that the one question of mine you answered?
Because comprehensively answering repetitive nonsense from wingnuts is boring.
Actually, the problem with this discussion is that the argument isn’t really if Iran has the ‘right’ to develop a nuke, but whether it is desirable for the rest of the world if Iran develops a nuke.
Well, gee, if the argument was framed in that way, I might agree with you. However, reading through the blog and the comments, the argument is couched in a moral rather than consequential framework.
And the moral factor does matter. After all, if Iran has as much right to nukes as the US, if it has a real need for a nuclear deterrent, and if the US has blown all of its credibility on lying about Iraq, then America is going to find it difficult to get other countries to go along with its latest military rampage.
Which does have the good point that the blowback will be aimed squarely at the US rather than the rest of us, and will make it more likely that New York rather than London becomes the target of the first terrorist nuke.
Pot. Kettle.
Geez, I forgot trope number 5 – the U.S. is worse than Iran, or any other nation. Ever. This may be adduced by reference to any military involvement or action in which the United States has ever engaged – the context in which such actions took place or the purpose and effect of such actions may be safely ignored.
By contrast, it should be observed that Iran is only doing what is necessary to safeguard and preserve its interests, which every other nation in the world is entitled to do, without question and without qualification.
Finally, as a finishing flourish, a hearty wish of murder and mayhem to be visited upon the American hegemon may be added. As a right-thinking person, Phoenician may of course take extreme delight in such a possibility, and have the added benefit of denying the same, at length, after the fact, even when multiple evidences of such are presented.
Good for you, Phoenician – stick with the tried-and-true.
PiatoR,
The analogy doesn’t hold because of the mechanics of deterrence as they apply to nuclear weapons. The mechanics of nuclear deterrence don’t work the same way. Possession of nuclear weapons is not the Westphalian equivalent of possession of the franchise for use of deadly force. An analogy which might be closer to the one you propose would relate warfare to possession of firearms.
Strategically, however, nuclear weapons are not firearms.
The deterrence mechanics just don’t work the same.
I suppose if you want to go for a fully infantile view of interstate relations fine, whatever. Aside from your recent charm offensive, let me see if I can do your homework for you…
Do I believe that any given state, say the US, has a “right” to an infinitely large nuclear stockpile?
No.
Not insofar as I think that any state has the right to lose control over its nuclear weapons capability or has the right to let nuclear weapons fall in to the hands of genuinely bad actors.
As stockpile size increases management, physical control, and system reliability are pushed to ever slimmer margins while demanding perfection over larger numbers of individual items eventually means that as stockpile size increases the probability that nukes get loose becomes a certainty.
I also note that you equate the right to have nukes is the same as having the need for deterrence. This doesn’t follow. More explicitly, the right to a nuclear deterrence is not the same as the right to having nuclear weapons.
PiaToR:
Can you posit a set of circumstances in which it would be okay for the US to prevent Iran from getting nukes?
Moral, consequential, whatever, go nuts! I just want to know if there is any good faith on your part in saying that, you know, in this case we’re SOL morally.
Yes, Phoenician, please do answer Tachyonshuggy’s question.
The moral case:
The government of Iran isn’t democratic and therefore not a real government. As such it has no more of a right to nuclear weapons than Exxon has.
:peter
“Extension of the right to bear arms almost certainly leads to homicide with firearms. Your argument is that, since homicide is not a right, bearing arms is also not a right. Would this be correct?”
Not at all. Look to the south. What happened to homocide [and other violent crime] rates in Australia when the government there sharply curtailed the right to bear arms?
Disarming the law-abiding populace simply gives an arms advantage to the criminal element.
Sorry, but your inability to represent your positions clearly and concisely leads others to assumptions. Let’s try some simple questions:
Do you think Iran’s leaders are rational?
Do you think they are serious in their desire to rid the middle-east of Israel?
Do you think the entire nation of Israel is going to pack up and leave?
Do you think war between Iran and Israel would be a good thing?
Do you think a nuclear war between Israel and the rest of the middle-east would be a good thing?
Do you think?
It seems you brought in the moral question, by stating Iran has the right to nukes, and whether that is good or bad is up to the reader.
The question put up earlier in the thread was: should Iran have nukes. Most of the world bodies have said no, they should not. To come to a conclusion, one must evaluate how that would affect the balance of power in the entire region, who might then want nukes in order to balance Iran’s regional power (Saudi Arabia? Egypt?) how well they might be controlled, and how they might be used by an unstable and unrepresentative government.
You are going to be hard pressed to fit all the entities that don’t want Iran to have nukes into the wingnut category. I’m certain the majority of people in London don’t want Iran to have nukes either, so if they do have a terrorist attack, I hope that knowledge will give you some amount of comfort.
And the other one is the only one which has expressed a desire to use nukes. On a country which it already attacks militarily.
But that’s so irrelevant, I can understand why you didn’t even bother to mention it.
Extension of the right to bear arms almost certainly leads to homicide with firearms. Your argument is that, since homicide is not a right, bearing arms is also not a right. Would this be correct?
And here we have a classic straw-man argument. People overwhelmingly believe that known trouble-makers (convicted felons, etc.), should not own guns, 2nd amendment notwithstanding. Iran is a known trouble-maker; they shouldn’t have nukes.
TV (Harry)
Actually, World War III kicked off 4 years and 4 months ago, give or take a few days.
Just think of September 11th as the day we noticed that the Rhineland had been rearmed.
Emphasis mine.
When Iran requires deterrence AS A RESULT OF its nuclear programs (and foaming-at-the-mouth pronouncements of its President), your argument is just plain old lefty tautology, PIATOR.
Ask the man in Tripoli how much “deterrence” he needs now that he gave up his WMD programs. Funny that particular cause and effect train.
You, my kiwi hack, are full ot shit.
No, WW3 started the day the Soviets set off their first nuke, and ended when the hammer-and-sickle was lowered over the Kremlin in 1991.
This is WW4.
Let’s keep our version numbering straight people, or the end-user community will lose all respect.
In other words, you’ll do anything and say anything to again put your massive pride, arrogance, and reputation for making idiotic statements before all reason.
In light of Iran’s stated intentions for such arms, perhaps you could define “right” and why such a thing exists in this context. Don’t give me that deterrence canard; state why there are “rights” for nukes within radical states. Oh, sorry, that’s that moral equivalency thing all over again, isn’t it?
Short version: Others here pay you too much courtesy. You’re a lying fool.
Robert Crawford  That’s why I give it 30 minutes. If Iran fires a missile, what will happen in California will make what Earl Warren did to the Japanese look like Teddy Roosevelt saving the bison…
The EU is a bunch of spineless cowards. They’ll speak harsh words and issue meaningless letters. Sanctions will only embolden Iran’s Grand-Pooh-Bah since the world is out to get them.
I believe that the EU hopes that either the US or Israel will take command of the situation militarily so that they (the EU) will have no ownership in the decision. By doing so, the EU can sit back and throw stones at any imperfections that occur as part of the process.
If the US or Israeli action is moderately successful, and world polls back the intervention, then and only then, will the EU take half (if not all) ownership of the solution. Otherwise the EU will do what it is best at: bitch, moan, and verbally persecute the lead figure about method and the outcome.
I think PIATOR is insane. However you have to give him (her) credit for actually saying what a sizable hunk of the American left thinks, but hasn’t the courage to say. I’m still hoping Actus and Carl will chime in, btw.
Give credit to a frothing moonbat, corvan? I’d rather institute better arms control over New Zealand by cinching Phoney’s straight jacket tighter.
I think you may be right, Corvan. There seems to be a real pathology at work with that one.
It should have thought of that before signing and reaping the benefits of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, dontcha think?
Maybe they had as much right, but if so, they sold it.
Sha. Israel has bigger fish to fry than dissecting Patriots.
Corvan,
Sorry, I didn’t see your response to my comment last night till this morning.
To be honest, I am more concerned about the American Left on this issue than I am the Chinese government. At least the latter will deal with the Iran problem seriously. I can’t count on the Left in this regard, because they are a very un-serious group.
To them, we’re not at war, you see? This past four years with no attacks within our country is not the result of persistent defense against the threats we face. No, it would have happened anyhow, and anyone who disagrees on this is only riddled with fear and in support of a police state headed by a chimp. “Why are we at war?There’s no threat! You’re just a bunch of warmonger fascists!” That’s all I hear on other left-leaning sites.
Iraq will be seen as a dry-run if things get more heated with Iran. I can then be thankful that we’ll have a base of operations right next door to them. Iran has no business with nukes, as they are not democratic and are ruled by proven fanatics. I will count on serious people, and serious countries taking Iran head-on when the timing is right, but I don’t think we can count on the Left to step out of their perpetual ignorance. And that’s a shame.
Phoenician?