babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Iran goes nuclear

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Iran goes nuclear
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 10 February 2003 06:17 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Following North Korea's lead, Iran has announced it will develop a nuclear program. Clearly, the U.S. with its axis of evil rhetoric and aggressive posturing has started an arms race. I think NK and Iran have little choice but to demonstate a credible deterrence to US threats. If you show yourself feeble as Iraq has done, you become an easy target.
quote:
Iran Says Enriched Uranium Plant Under Way
Mon February 10, 2003 12:03 PM ET

By Paul Hughes
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's atomic energy chief said Monday the country had started an ambitious nuclear energy program and was poised to begin processing uranium, which some Western experts fear could lead to building a nuclear bomb. Reuters Article


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 February 2003 07:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow. I'm surprised they're announcing it now instead of after it's a done deal. But now is a good time to announce it, I guess - if all these smaller countries start announcing their weapons programs now, then the US will have to fight wars on a bunch of different fronts if they want to contain them all at once.

Maybe if enough countries do this, the US will have so many targets that it will be useless to go after any of them? Well, one can hope, like skdadl from the other thread.

Another arms race indeed. I can't condemn Iran for doing so. After all, they're not building anything that the US doesn't already have.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 10 February 2003 07:16 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 10 February 2003 07:21 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Another arms race indeed. I can't condemn Iran for doing so. After all, they're not building anything that the US doesn't already have.

!!

of course we condemn Iran.

we should be working to *denuclearize* both declared nuclear weapons states and non-declared nuclear weapons states.

we don't want a situation where if north korea goes nuclear, then japan, south korea and taiwan go nuclear. we don't want a situation where if israel is nuclear, then it's ok if iran, iraq, syria and saudi arabia go nuclear.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 February 2003 07:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, WW, I thought of that after I posted it. I guess what I meant is that we have to criticize those closer to home first. I don't want to see an arms race either, but I can see where these smaller countries would feel insecure enough to start building them with a trigger-happy asshole like Bush in charge of the largest arsenal in the world. That's all I meant.

I don't want to see any more weapons built either.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 10 February 2003 07:26 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No nuclear powers have ever gone to war with one another.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 10 February 2003 07:29 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But the year is young, JimmyB.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 10 February 2003 07:38 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What else is keeping the peace between India and Pakistan?

And certainly the mad US and the madder SU would have fought a world war if mutually assured destruction wasn't the sure result.

Point well taken though BD, the day is young.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 10 February 2003 08:08 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So now Bush has inadvertently (?) created an actual axis. I think all parties are operating on the principal that the US can not be everywhere at once, and that it is better to stand firm now, then get taken apart one by one.

Smart.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 10 February 2003 08:49 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
re: India/Pakistan and the balance of terror during the Cold War

- the first difference between India/Pakistan and the US/USSR is that India and Pakistan have already fought two wars since 1948.

- the second difference is that the vaunted control systems that kept each country's leadership in contact with each other in the Cold War (the red phone, etc) is not there with India/Pakistan.

- the third is that that the likelihood of nuclear weapons use might be affected by any war in the gulf.

any conflict there may make Pakistan bolder because India would be weaker,

there are 3.1 million Indian workers in the gulf region (many of who were dramatically airlifted out in the 1991 war), plus:

source

quote:
Iraq in turn is one of the world's few governments which broadly supports India's stand on Kashmir. For decades, the two governments have had extensive trade and investment relations, including long-term oil supply agreements ... Should there be a war against Iraq, India will be immediately affected through a choking of relatively steady and cheap oil supplies from Iraq, and a sharp rise in international crude prices, which are widely expected to spurt by up to $10 a barrel, from the present $30-32. India's oil import bill in the current year is running about 30 percent higher than last year. The latest political troubles in Venezuela have raised it further.

State-owned oil companies only have 40 days' requirements of petroleum products such as diesel, kerosene and petrol, and 15 days' supply of crude, plus, India has no strategic oil reserves. High oil prices will not only raise the general cost-base of the Indian economy (in which petroleum consumption has been rising far more rapidly than GDP), but also erode the country's currently high ($70 billion-plus) foreign exchange reserves.

Indian agriculture, especially foodgrains production, has just had a record bad year, thanks to a severe drought. High energy prices for irrigation pumpsets will cripple recovery, raise food prices and create social unrest.



From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 10 February 2003 08:56 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
an interesting summary on iran and weapons of mass destruction
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 10 February 2003 09:22 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Frankly, I find classifying chemicals as a WMD disingenuous. Fuel-air explosives and carpet bombing are far more lethal.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 11 February 2003 02:30 AM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
of course we condemn Iran.

Frankly, I find that hard to do. It is right to work towards de-nuclearizing the world. But if Iran can deter what is a very credible threat from the U.S. by developing nuclear weapons, then I think they should. Because otherwise tens of thousands of Iranians may die in a U.S. attack. Are you willing to accept their deaths for the sake of a principle that the world should be nuclear-free?

The world will not feel any inducement to disarm unless the U.S. disarms first. They have used nuclear weapons, and Bush has threatened to use them again. Sadly, a nuclear deterent can save lives. So I feel you jump the gun and are somewhat unfair in condemning Iran.


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 11 February 2003 12:20 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uh huh. And in fact, Iran has interfered in Afghanistan. Therefore Afghanistan should develop nuclear weapons and damn the consequences. Meanwhile, the Afgan majority has often come into conflict with its Tajik population. Clearly, Tajikistan must develop nuclear weapons in order to deter Afghanistan. So must Uzekistan for the same reasons.

And Iraq will need nuclear weapons to stave off an Iranian invasion. Which leads to the obvious need for a nuclear-armed Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. And who will protect the Kurds against this nuclear armed Iran? All the Kurdish groups need the bomb too!

And so does Turkey, it's already mentioned how it feels threatened by Iraq. But if Turkey has nuclear weapons, then anyone can see that Bulgaria and Serbia need them as well. And Bosnia will need to develop its own nuclear deterrent against Serbia. So will the Kosovo Liberation Army. It's all one MAD happy world! Hurrah!


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 11 February 2003 04:07 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Without a deterrent, tens of thousands of Iranians may die in a U.S. attack. That is the reality of present global relations.

If Canada were listed on Bush's axis of evil, and threatened with nuclear weapons, would you feel the same?

Condemn the cause of nuclear proliferation, not the effects.


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 11 February 2003 07:34 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, i condemn both. I'm thrilled that Canada did not develop its own nuclear weapons, even if it does leave us more vulnerable to US bullying. And if i believed that deterrence worked, i never would have got involved inthe nuclear disarmament movement, those many years ago. Fewer nuclear weapons in the world just trikes me as a better idea than more nuclear weapons, and i'm concerned that a nuclear-armed Iran will lead to yet more proliferation.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 11 February 2003 11:11 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're right. I guess it's a no win situation.
Iran will be damned if it doesn't go nuclear,
while the whole region may be damned if it does.
The trouble is with Israel being allowed to have
nukes inspite of Security Council Resolutions
that the Mid-East be a nuclear-free zone. If one
country's exonerated, then it's a domino effect
as you suggested.

And a belligerent super-power with a hit-list,
doesn't help matters.

[ 11 February 2003: Message edited by: darkhorse ]


From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 February 2003 12:58 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't know Tadzhikistan had nukes.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rubble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3517

posted 12 February 2003 11:36 AM      Profile for rubble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
we don't want a situation where if israel is nuclear, then it's ok if iran, iraq, syria and saudi arabia go nuclear.

It's called the balance of power! And there's nothing wrong with that. Look at the Tamal Tigers, when they finally built up an arsenal against the Sri Lankans after 50 years. They have finally sat down for peace talks.

So! As long as Israel is the only one with a viable military with nukes, they'll never have to sit down on the negotiating table.


From: Earth | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 12 February 2003 11:43 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As long as Israel is the only one with a viable military with nukes, they'll never have to sit down on the negotiating table.

Not neccessarily true.
Israel is hurting economically. How long can they continue with the costly occupation? A program of divestment and boycott, cultural and economic, could go a long way to forcing Israel to the negotiating table. They might be able to stave of the inevitable with more US dollars, but the US seems intent on running its own economy into the ground.

But in the end, the economic situation could do far more to bring concessions from Israel than any external threat.

Which is why there is such a campaign by lobbyists to discredit the divestment and boycott campains as "anti-semetic."


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 12 February 2003 12:52 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As usual, WingNut cuts to the heart of the issue. Nukes don't keep Israel safe, that's fersure. And as to the Tamil Tigers, the facts are precisely the reverse. They were forced to the bargaining table, and gave up their demand for independence, when their outside souces of wepaons and funding began to dry up. It was military weakness, not military strength, that made them consider a peaceful solution.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
rubble
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3517

posted 12 February 2003 02:09 PM      Profile for rubble     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As for Israel, the Jewish extremists will nec=ver sit down.

The Tamals have not lost their military force. As a matter of fact, the Sri Lankans are demanding that the Tamals disarm for peace. That's not going to happen, because the Sri's will blow the fuck out of them if they disarm. BTW the Sri's are trained by the IDF... how do ya like them apples?


From: Earth | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 12 February 2003 02:47 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for Israel, the Jewish extremists will nec=ver sit down.



True. Neither will Palestinian extremists.
The trick, in the end, is to sideline the extremists and allow the people who want peace to sit down.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 12 February 2003 09:11 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes ... and try to reduce outside stimulus to militarism, perhaps? I really think there would be more chance of a genuine peace dialogue if the free and abundant military aid that flows was reduced, and that this may be a general principle for dispute resolution, one that will work better than a series of arms races.

"the Sri's will blow the fuck out of them if they disarm" -- this is a terribly ignorant statement on so many levels. I suggest doing some reading about the Tamil-Sinhalese conflict in Sri Lanka and the recent peace process, and then if you like we can have a thread on Sri Lanka, with links to factual information and everything.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca