Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SilverMK2 wrote:Must be all the radioactive fallout that gets blown into the UK from Russia (possibly the last people you want telling you how to build and maintain nuclear anything)...

HAHA QFT!

dogma wrote:Worst case scenario: He uses nuclear weapons on a neighboring state.

This leads organically into a multinational crackdown on Venezuela. Probably featuring air strikes, and mass troop deployments from states like Brazil. The aggregated effect would likely deepen the impulse for communal action. In the end his belligerence could actually strengthen the US position, provided we don't pick up some form of idiot ball.

Why do you think there would be a multinational crackdown? That stops an invasion cold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:They better not mess with Brazil, they're crazy. I just looked at Brazil on a map, it's huge! They could kill everyone in Venezuela just by dumping Piranhas on them.

Yes Brazil, in addition to bhe the Next Big Thing economically, they have recently developed the RPP (rocket propelled piranha). Yargh!

If I wanted to develop nuclear weapons I would just buy off-the-shelf technology from Pakistan or North Korea.

They're doing one better-going to the source-the rooskies.

Why buy a cheap NK knockoff of a cheap Chinese knockoff of time horonored Soviet era technology when you can buy the direct Soviet era technology.

The Pakistani stuff isn't cheap knock-offs. It's good quality stuff nicked from the Dutch.

Wait, the Dutch don't have nukes. Where'd they get it?

EDIT: kind of a timely article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090914/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_venezuela_arms_1

Nukes are just engineering techniques.

The Dutch have plenty of good engineering.

Frazzled wrote:
Why do you think there would be a multinational crackdown? That stops an invasion cold.

No one likes a rogue state; least of all a rogue state with nuclear weapons. Someone willing to open with a nuclear strike is not someone you want running one of the countries in your immediate vicinity. That said, Chavez isn't a moron. He won't actually launch a nuclear weapon at one of his neighbors. The greater issue, from a US perspective, if our committment to nonproliferation. In many ways this is a power test, though it really shouldn't be.

No one likes a rogue state; least of all a rogue state with nuclear weapons. Someone willing to open with a nuclear strike is not someone you want running one of the countries in your immediate vicinity.

You mean like Iran right? Or was it North Korea? I forget.

Frazzled wrote:
You mean like Iran right? Or was it North Korea? I forget.

You misunderstand. The pursuit of nuclear weapons is not enough to qualify any given state as rogue. The use of nuclear weapons is where that line sits. The notion that no other state should be equipped with nukes, as a matter of moral imperative, is of limited popularity outside the US.

Because we have them and gthey don't. Thats kinda of the point.

Because we have them and gthey don't. Thats kinda of the point.

Oh, its common for nuclear nations to oppose foreign nuclear programs. It isn't common for them to do it on moral grounds. That's a uniquely American approach. Its a Reaganite line in the sand which is lacking in overall credibility; considering that we've made little in the way of an effort to dispose of our own stockpile. We got rid of some obsolete designs, and generally let our stockpile rot (though that's going to change the moment another Republican comes into office), but have never made an effort to drawn down our bleeding-edge stuff.

In the meantime the Israelis continue to signal they are going to bomb the &^* out of Iran to try to stop them, while the rest of the world plays the fiddle. I am sure Obama will be shocked, just shocked when the bombers fly.

Let them. It matters very little to us if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. That regime isn't going anywhere of its own volition, and we aren't about to reenact Iraq in a country 3 times its size. If the Israelis want to destroy what little remains of their international credibility they can feel free to do so. It isn't like we need them anymore, what with all those troops sitting in Iraq; a good 10% of them likely to remain on permanent deployment.

Thats short sighted unless the idea of $300 a barrel oil and hezbullah attacks on major targets in the US matters very little to us.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574410672271269390.html#mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Frazzled wrote:Thats short sighted unless the idea of $300 a barrel oil and hezbullah attacks on major targets in the US matters very little to us.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574410672271269390.html#mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

What? Hezbollah has nothing to do with the US. I can see the point about oil, I don't agree with it but I can see the logic, however equating Iranian nukes to a Hezbollah assault on the US? That's a really difficult inductive leap. Even if you want to see them as Iranian puppets we're talking about terrorist strikes which will inspire either massive air strikes, or US intervention is Lebanon. It isn't a confrontation they can expect to come away from in victory.

Incidentally, what's the alternative here? Do we bomb Iran instead of allowing Israel to do it? What good can possibly come out of that?

1. We'll see.
2. Get serious about Iran or just give up and publicly say its not our problem.

We've been serious about Iran for some time now. Just because we aren't attempting to manufacture some pretense to invasion, or levying additional sanctions it doesn't follow that we aren't serious.

I could care less who has nukes. Nuclear weapons are devices for posturing and passes for seats at negotiating tables. I'm not concerned about them. Let's say Iran has a nuke. One nuke. It drops it on Israel. Israel proceeds to glass Iran.

No one's going to tell me that the Iranians don't realize that this would be the turn of events...and no one would retaliate against the Israelis because they just don't give a feth and would do their thing and beat the ever-living gak out of any Middle Eastern nation which had the gall to raise arms against them.

North Korea is never going to use its nukes because they require Chinese support to survive. The day Kim Jong launches a nuke is the day the Chinese wipe thier hands of the North Koreans and the South Koreans, with American support, finish off the job that should have been finished off 50 years ago if not for the aforementioned Chinese.

Venezuela is never going to use any nukes it gets because Ye Olde Monroe Doctrine states that no one is going to help them. The Russians makes their money if they did (but they're not) help the Venezuelans get nukes, so what do they care if Venezuela ceases to exist?


People in power get there because they want power. No one gets any power when the planet gets glassed. Therefore it is in the best interests of no nation to ever engage in a nuke fight. Kantian philosophy on war made manifest. Done deal.

dogma wrote:We've been serious about Iran for some time now. Just because we aren't attempting to manufacture some pretense to invasion, or levying additional sanctions it doesn't follow that we aren't serious.

Talky talky just means they get closer to building nukes.

Quit the hypocrisy. Do something before they get the nukes or quit it. The iranians just told the administration to shove it. Talks are worse than irrelevant.

Frazzled wrote:
Talky talky just means they get closer to building nukes.

Quit the hypocrisy. Do something before they get the nukes or quit it. The iranians just told the administration to shove it. Talks are worse than irrelevant.

How? I don't understand this logic. We don't Iran to have nukes, but we aren't willing to go to war to prevent their government acquiring the capacity to produce them. So, instead of simply pretending that we don't care at all we use alternative modes of engagement. The hypocrisy would be doing nothing, not doing less than everything.

You really need to stop looking at this like a neocon. Strength isn't everything in IR.

The hypocrisy is that we and Europe talk, merely emboldening Iran to keep going.

Cairnius wrote:I could care less who has nukes. Nuclear weapons are devices for posturing and passes for seats at negotiating tables. I'm not concerned about them. Let's say Iran has a nuke. One nuke. It drops it on Israel. Israel proceeds to glass Iran.

No one's going to tell me that the Iranians don't realize that this would be the turn of events...and no one would retaliate against the Israelis because they just don't give a feth and would do their thing and beat the ever-living gak out of any Middle Eastern nation which had the gall to raise arms against them.

It also doesn't fir the Iranian modus operandi. They aren't about overt shows of force, their entire approach to Israel has been about subversion through the support of dissent. Indeed, that's been pretty much their only means of engaging with the Middle East as a whole.

Cairnius wrote:
North Korea is never going to use its nukes because they require Chinese support to survive. The day Kim Jong launches a nuke is the day the Chinese wipe thier hands of the North Koreans and the South Koreans, with American support, finish off the job that should have been finished off 50 years ago if not for the aforementioned Chinese.

Its a little presumptuous to attribute rational behavior to the North Korean state. There may come a time when they decide to take their chances in a military struggle if they don't believe they can hold onto power any other way. They won't come out victorious, but the distribution of forces certainly points to a long, bloody conflict. Not something that we should right off as being beyond the pale.

Cairnius wrote:
Venezuela is never going to use any nukes it gets because Ye Olde Monroe Doctrine states that no one is going to help them. The Russians makes their money if they did (but they're not) help the Venezuelans get nukes, so what do they care if Venezuela ceases to exist?

No one will help Venezuela, but not because the Monroe Doctrine; a concept of increasingly less relevance to world affairs. It made a great deal of sense when South America was a global back-water, but now that its coming into its own there isn't going to be a whole lot the US can do to avoid losing its claim to hemispheric dominance. No, Venezuela won't receive outside support because there simply isn't enough to gain in helping them.

Cairnius wrote:
People in power get there because they want power. No one gets any power when the planet gets glassed. Therefore it is in the best interests of no nation to ever engage in a nuke fight. Kantian philosophy on war made manifest. Done deal.

There's a lot of space between a global catastrophe, and a minor nuclear exchange. This isn't the Cold War, the MAD doctrine doesn't apply when we're discussing nuclear attacks on non-nuclear states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:The hypocrisy is that we and Europe talk, merely emboldening Iran to keep going.

That's not hypocrisy. Nor is it necessarily true. Support for nukes isn't a unanimous position within the Iranian state.

The military dictatorship in charge in Iran supports nukes, thats the only group that matters.

Frazzled wrote:The military dictatorship in charge in Iran supports nukes, thats the only group that matters.

It isn't a military dictatorship. That's a gross oversimplification. There are numerous state officials in positions of power who don't agree with the role Ahmadinejad plays in the current government. Not to mention the fact that Khamenei is the real in Iran, and he has concerns which extend beyond the military.

Not any more. They've effectively moved beyond any pretense of theocratic democracy to military dictatorship. A few conservative mullahs, the "president" and the Republican guard. Pretty much your standard issue military dictatorship. Almost boring.

Frazzled wrote:Not any more. They've effectively moved beyond any pretense of theocratic democracy to military dictatorship. A few conservative mullahs, the "president" and the Republican guard. Pretty much your standard issue military dictatorship. Almost boring.

And you're drawing this conclusion from the contested result of an election which may have been perfectly legitimate? Or is it the government sponsored violence against the populace? Neither of those conditions disqualify a state from standing as a form of democracy. That said, Iran is a republic, not a democracy, as the people are not the source of political power.

Iran is not a republic at this point. Its a dictatorship. Pretty every international affairs type agrees with that statement now.

Killing the competition generally is a leading economic indicator that you're runnning a dictatorship.

Frazzled wrote:Iran is not a republic at this point. Its a dictatorship. Pretty every international affairs type agrees with that statement now.

I don't know where you're getting that from, because I spend a lot of time with this stuff and I don't see anything approaching agreement on the matter. There's certainly a consensus within certain ideological camps (particularly amongst Neocoservatives and Neoliberals), but that's hardly the same as broad agreement.

Frazzled wrote:
Killing the competition generally is a leading economic indicator that you're runnning a dictatorship.

Economic indicator? Leading indicator maybe, but it has nothing to do with economics. Either way, the its possible for a state to be both Republican and Autocratic. There's no reason the role played by the people has to be significant in order for the classification to apply.