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.

ShumaGorath wrote:Man, you people seriously have no idea how powerful a nuclear bomb is and isn't. The iranians don't have a four stage hydrogen fusion device like the kind we do, the best they could possibly hope for with what they have is a dirty bomb or a hiroshima-esque fission bomb, which is powerful enough to demolish a city, but would not spread a significant amount of fallout outside of its target city.

I am glad you find that comforting...

I don't think he finds it comforting, so much as enlightening. Nuclear attacks are very bad, but that doesn't mean we have to deliberately overestimate their destructive potential in order to ramp up the badness to the max. It cheapens reality, and leads to poor decision making.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Man, you people seriously have no idea how powerful a nuclear bomb is and isn't. The iranians don't have a four stage hydrogen fusion device like the kind we do, the best they could possibly hope for with what they have is a dirty bomb or a hiroshima-esque fission bomb, which is powerful enough to demolish a city, but would not spread a significant amount of fallout outside of its target city.

I am glad you find that comforting...

It's important to understand the reality. There's a difference between a thermonuclear fusion device and the crap they have. People act like Iran getting a nuke puts the future of all nearby countries on a knifes edge. The best nuke they could deploy wouldn't even prevent a military response from the country they hit, let alone the world. As it is, Iran is far less likely to use it's nuke (that it doesn't have and can't right now make) than North Korea is to use the 6-8 it has. People are staring at the wrong part of the world.

Exactly, Iran is actually in a pretty solid situation vis a vis security.; especially given its expanding economic ties with China. They have no reason to use any potential nuke they might obtain. In fact, its likely that their current pursuit of nuclear technology is the direct result of their primary opponent (the US) being tied up in two unpopular wars. It would have been incredibly foolish for them to do anything but push for greater regional power, at least provided the country doesn't rend itself in two.

dogma wrote:I don't think he finds it comforting, so much as enlightening. Nuclear attacks are very bad, but that doesn't mean we have to deliberately overestimate their destructive potential in order to ramp up the badness to the max. It cheapens reality, and leads to poor decision making.

Well, according to his response it is comforting. Truth be told, it is annoying when people overestimate the destructive capability of any nuclear weapon, but even a weapon on the scale of the Little Boy or Fat Man bombs is still capable of killing millions. I prefer to not remain comfortable with the idea of any of them being in the hands of Iran...but that's just me. Just as I find your new avatar discomforting

The robotypus is capable of intercepting any nuclear warhead launched at the United States. You should find it very comforting.

dogma wrote:Exactly, Iran is actually in a pretty solid situation vis a vis security.; especially given its expanding economic ties with China. They have no reason to use any potential nuke they might obtain. In fact, its likely that their current pursuit of nuclear technology is the direct result of their primary opponent (the US) being tied up in two unpopular wars.

This is based on Western logic of keeping self-preservation and expanded prosperity as the goal of any country. They practically reject this outright, and are governed by a true religious nutcase. I don't think your assertion works here.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:I don't think he finds it comforting, so much as enlightening. Nuclear attacks are very bad, but that doesn't mean we have to deliberately overestimate their destructive potential in order to ramp up the badness to the max. It cheapens reality, and leads to poor decision making.

Well, according to his response it is comforting. Truth be told, it is annoying when people overestimate the destructive capability of any nuclear weapon, but even a weapon on the scale of the Little Boy or Fat Man bombs is still capable of killing millions. I prefer to not remain comfortable with the idea of any of them being in the hands of Iran...but that's just me. Just as I find your new avatar discomforting

I find correct knowledge comforting. Not the fact that they have a nuke. I prefer that people not be under the illusion of world ending supernukes, and I find it comforting when they can talk about such things factually and realistically.

This is based on Western logic of keeping self-preservation and expanded prosperity as the goal of any country. They practically reject this outright, and are governed by a true religious nutcase. I don't think your assertion works here.

You don't really have any idea what you're talking about there.

ShumaGorath wrote:You don't really have any idea what you're talking about there.

And you hardly ever do...

JEB_Stuart wrote:This is based on Western logic of keeping self-preservation and expanded prosperity as the goal of any country. They practically reject this outright,

If you haven't noticed, the Iranian state is influenced by a number of classically Western political devices. Including representative democracy, the rule of law, and socialist services. In fact, the only thing they don't get down with is the separation of church and state. And that 'church' which is connected to the state? Its primary goal is self-preservation, and the expansion of its prosperity.

The idea that the Islamic world rejects all Western influence is internally driven propaganda. Hell, even the Islamist movement draws heavily on European fascism, both historically, and rhetorically; going so far as to use loan words and phrases like 'third way'.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
and are governed by a true religious nutcase.

No, their popular representative is a religious nutcase, in public anyway. The person who actually governs the state is not a religious nutcase.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You don't really have any idea what you're talking about there.

And you hardly ever do...

I'm not the one calling a country of millions a giant suicide bomber with absolutely no intention towards self preservation or prosperity. Lets review who is being more hyperbolic and fantastical here.

dogma wrote:If you haven't noticed, the Iranian state is influenced by a number of classically Western political devices. Including representative democracy, the rule of law, and socialist services. In fact, the only thing they don't get down with is the separation of church and state. And that 'church' which is connected to the state? Its primary goal is self-preservation, and the expansion of its prosperity.

Ok, really, how representative is it? There have been numerous allegations of election fraud, and not to mention the states oppression of the opposition and opposition leader. Just because it claims one thing, doesn't necessarily mean it is what it claims. The rule of law? That remains to be seen. But I will give you socialist services, even if they can't afford them at the moment because oil is to cheap for their budget. But they are missing much more then just SOCAS. I am sure that you know this, and are just ignoring the long list of Western values that it rejects in order to keep things simple for the sake of discussion.

dogma wrote:No, their popular representative is a religious nutcase, in public anyway. The person who actually governs the state is not a religious nutcase.

To whom are you referring? I assume that you think that Mahmoud Amembersonlyjacket is the religious nutcase, and that the Grand Ayatollah is not. That is what it sounds like anyway, MA is their popular representative. Regardless though, they are both nutcases. I find it unnerving that we were so willing to go to war in Iraq over perceived WMDs, but now that we have a country that actually CAN make them, and no one is willing to do anything...

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm not the one calling a country of millions a giant suicide bomber with absolutely no intention towards self preservation or prosperity. Lets review who is being more hyperbolic and fantastical here.

Hmm, I don't recall saying anything like that, I was referring to their government for one, and it was a dig at the perceived notion that they think of things in the same terms we do. Read what you want, but that is what I said.

Ok, really, how representative is it? There have been numerous allegations of election fraud, and not to mention the states oppression of the opposition and opposition leader. Just because it claims one thing, doesn't necessarily mean it is what it claims.

I remember two hotly contested elections with Bush, where our own representative system was called into question (he did lose the popular vote in one of those).

The rule of law? That remains to be seen. But I will give you socialist services, even if they can't afford them at the moment because oil is to cheap for their budget. But they are missing much more then just SOCAS. I am sure that you know this, and are just ignoring the long list of Western values that it rejects in order to keep things simple for the sake of discussion.

Which western values specifically?

To whom are you referring? I assume that you think that Mahmoud Amembersonlyjacket is the religious nutcase, and that the Grand Ayatollah is not. That is what it sounds like anyway, MA is their popular representative. Regardless though, they are both nutcases. I find it unnerving that we were so willing to go to war in Iraq over perceived WMDs, but now that we have a country that actually CAN make them, and no one is willing to do anything...

I was saying the same thing when we went into Iraq over north korea. Almost makes you want to question our actual reasoning for doing so doesn't it?

Hmm, I don't recall calling that either, I was referring to their government for one, and it was a dig at the perceived notion that they think of things in the same terms we do. Read what you want, but that is what I said.

I read what you said.

ShumaGorath wrote:I remember two hotly contested elections with Bush, where our own representative system was called into question (he did lose the popular vote in one of those).

I only remember one being hotly contested. He won 2004 outright, both in popular and electoral vote. I expected that, as did many people. The election in 2000 is technically settled, but if you want a discussion on the merits and problems of the Electoral College that is a different thread.

ShumaGorath wrote:Which western values specifically?

Really? REALLY? Ok, I guess you want a list: women's rights, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, political freedom, freedom of movement, CHILDREN'S EXECUTIONS, etc, etc. Come on, that should not have even been asked for...

ShumaGorath wrote:I read what you said.

No you read what you wanted. You do it quite often...unless its Fateweaver, then you can read what is actually said.

women's rights

Not even 50 years old, and we're still working on improving that one. It's also not universally western.

freedom of speech

Except for when muslims want to wear burkas I guess, though Iran does have relative freedom of speech outside of political right to assemble (which they do often utilize).

freedom of expression

Like how we let gays marry or join the military.

freedom of religion

We're good about that one in the U.S., europes having a hard time not keeping its muslims down though.

freedom of movement

Tell that to someone in guantanamo.

CHILDREN'S EXECUTIONS

Well, you know, outside of wartime.

Come on, that should not have even been asked for...

I find when someone talks about western ideals in a thread two down from one about offshore torture prisons it clouds the whole issue.

No you read what you wanted.

I wanted you to say that? I must be a more powerful sorcerer than I realize.

ShumaGorath wrote:Not even 50 years old, and we're still working on improving that one. It's also not universally western.

Your history is waaay off.

ShumaGorath wrote:Except for when muslims want to wear burkas I guess, though Iran does have relative freedom of speech outside of political right to assemble (which they do often utilize).

Well, since that isn't actually banned, its only a thought, your argument is null.

ShumaGorath wrote:Like how we let gays marry or join the military.

That isn't freedom of expression and you know it.

ShumaGorath wrote:Tell that to someone in guantanamo.

Uh comparing a prison to society at large is stupid...

ShumaGorath wrote:Well, you know, outside of wartime.

You are making fething stupid statements today...

Hang on, guys. I've read through what you've both posted and can't really see started this little flamefest.

1) Shuma: I don't like it when people act like "ZOMG! Iran will blowz up whole worldz!1!!" They don't have that kind of power. It's North Korea we should worry about.

2) JEB: They may not have that ability, but even little A-bombs (EF: Which I'd like to point out they still don't have) are more than capable of killing several millions. That is bad enough in itself.

It looks to me that you're both right.

IMHO, why should Iran be refused the chance to become a 'nukular' state?

JEB_Stuart wrote:Ok, really, how representative is it? There have been numerous allegations of election fraud, and not to mention the states oppression of the opposition and opposition leader. Just because it claims one thing, doesn't necessarily mean it is what it claims.

It was set up as a representative democracy, and claims to it as an ideal. It seems to me that you're making the mistake of assuming a system is not a representative democracy if it does not follow the ideal function of one, which leaves much of the conduct in US politics wanting with respect to our own claims; particularly in our early history.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
The rule of law? That remains to be seen.

They have a legal code, and courts which make judgments against it. The relative bias implicit in those judgment does not eliminate it as a legal system, unless there was no rule of law in the US prior to the Civil Rights movement.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
But they are missing much more then just SOCAS. I am sure that you know this, and are just ignoring the long list of Western values that it rejects in order to keep things simple for the sake of discussion.

Honestly, I'm keeping things simple because it appears as if you obtain your knowledge of Iran from publicly available news outlets. Most of the information presented there is wildly inaccurate, and deliberately filtered to appeal to Western audiences. If you're referring to social values, that fine, but I'm not and never was. I'm referring to political values because those are the only values relevant to this conversation.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
To whom are you referring? I assume that you think that Mahmoud Amembersonlyjacket is the religious nutcase, and that the Grand Ayatollah is not. That is what it sounds like anyway, MA is their popular representative. Regardless though, they are both nutcases.

No, they're not. You seem really out of your depth here, so I'll just be brief. Khamenei was hand picked by Khomeini to succeed him as Supreme Leader. This had as much to do with his adherence to the concept of rule by Islamic jurists as it did with his loyalty to the system of popular involvement envisioned by Khomeini. This is central to everything Khamenei does as a ruler. He has no interest in seeing the state he helped build destroyed, its something he considers to be a good, and just influence on the world. Whether or not he is right about that is irrelevant, what is relevant is that he value the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is about as likely to engage in a war of suicide as any US President would be.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I find it unnerving that we were so willing to go to war in Iraq over perceived WMDs, but now that we have a country that actually CAN make them, and no one is willing to do anything...

Iran is four times the size of Iraq, has a far more popular government, and a fervently loyal, and well organized military. The situation only appears similar if you aren't paying attention, and that's without even broaching the issues with perception and WMDs as they relate to Iraq.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Not even 50 years old, and we're still working on improving that one. It's also not universally western.

Your history is waaay off.

Not really.

ShumaGorath wrote:Except for when muslims want to wear burkas I guess, though Iran does have relative freedom of speech outside of political right to assemble (which they do often utilize).

Well, since that isn't actually banned, its only a thought, your argument is null.

No it's not. Your reasoning is a bit faulty here. Banned Minaret towers? 'Random' search checks in airports? Banning of burkas in schools ect? I think these are all very valid points.

ShumaGorath wrote:Like how we let gays marry or join the military.

That isn't freedom of expression and you know it.

It...isn't?

ShumaGorath wrote:Tell that to someone in guantanamo.

Uh comparing a prison to society at large is stupid...

Saying that Guantanamo is a proper and legal prison like any other isn't that accurate either...

ShumaGorath wrote:Well, you know, outside of wartime.

You are making fething stupid statements today...

No need to make this personal, JEB. But I will agree on the fact that I don't really know of any western child executions. Not in this century at least.

Emperors Faithful wrote:why should Iran be refused the chance to become a 'nukular' state?

I think they shouldn't because it will create a major imbalance in terms of power structuring in the Middle East, which we can all agree will be a major bad thing. Israel is widely speculated to having nuclear weapons already, but this has never been substantiated and Israel, for whatever reason, has seen fit to keep silent on the issue. Regardless, Iran developing nukes will force an arms race in an already unstable region. Given the longstanding dislike the Persians and Arabs already have for each other, and their mutual hatred of Israel, I think that it would be better to just keep them all nuclear free.

All of them...except Israel. Israel is purpoted to have one of the largest amount of Nuclear Missile silo's after the US/Russia and (I think) France.

I was not aware in any way that this was some sort of 'secret.'

JEB_Stuart wrote:Israel is widely speculated to having nuclear weapons already, but this has never been substantiated and Israel, for whatever reason, has seen fit to keep silent on the issue.

Primarily done to avoid an arms race. Its better for them to maintain a physical advantage over any perceived adversary, than it is for them to use a 'nuclear club' of the sort that the US enjoyed during the Cold War.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Regardless, Iran developing nukes will force an arms race in an already unstable region.

That remains to be seen. Turkey is already nuclear capable, though only in a limited sense. Jordan lacks the monetary resources, and international will to secure such weapons. Iraq is a US puppet.

The primary worries are Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Syria already has a heavily policed nuclear program, and Saudi Arabia is in talks with other gulf states to engage in a joint, civilian research effort. Of the two, the Syrian program is the most likely to be covertly weaponized, as Saudi Arabia is essentially an American protectorate.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I was not aware in any way that this was some sort of 'secret.'

Its not really secret, so much as ambiguous. Israel tends to drop 'hints' every now and again, mostly when it feels threatened.

Most estimate places their total stockpile somewhere between 400-500 warheads.

Albatross wrote: I'm not in favour of aligning ourselves with the Israelis - we don't owe them jack gak.
.

You do realise the British were the ones who dumped them there in the first place, after relocating them from camps post World War 2? Admittedly, they'd changed their midns about the whole idea, and were pressured into it by the US and French, but to claim no responsibility for the current situation strikes me as a tad blase.

No need to make this personal, JEB. But I will agree on the fact that I don't really know of any western child executions. Not in this century at least.

There have been a significant number of incidences of child death at the hands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, several of which involved errors on the point of the families to respect checkpoints. One such soldier attended my school last year. Innocent people being killed extrajudicially for the sake of security, hence "Outside of wartime" implying it occurs in wartime. There are also several cases of mass killings in vietnam at the hands of american soldiers.

Ketara wrote:
You do realise the British were the ones who dumped them there in the first place, after relocating them from camps post World War 2? Admittedly, they'd changed their midns about the whole idea, and were pressured into it by the US and French, but to claim no responsibility for the current situation strikes me as a tad blase.

And do you realise that Israelis still celebrate the King David Hotel Bombing, in which British civilians were killed by Zionist terrorists? In fact, there was a lot of Zionist terrorism back then. The Israelis are not our friends. We owe them absolutley nothing. The Palestinians, on the other hand....

I say we sit back, relax and get a tan off of the nuclear blasts before nuclear winter sets in. It could last a while.

To be fair we should just let the middle east slit its own throat. They pretty much all hate each other anyway, they just need a push in the right direction.

Colossal Donkey wrote:I say we sit back, relax and get a tan off of the nuclear blasts before nuclear winter sets in. It could last a while.

To be fair we should just let the middle east slit its own throat. They pretty much all hate each other anyway, they just need a push in the right direction.

Enlightening.

ShumaGorath wrote:

No need to make this personal, JEB. But I will agree on the fact that I don't really know of any western child executions. Not in this century at least.

There have been a significant number of incidences of child death at the hands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, several of which involved errors on the point of the families to respect checkpoints. One such soldier attended my school last year. Innocent people being killed extrajudicially for the sake of security, hence "Outside of wartime" implying it occurs in wartime. There are also several cases of mass killings in vietnam at the hands of american soldiers.

Goop point. Currently reading up about some famous military trials. Some Lt. or other almost single-handedly killed a whole village numbering 100 men, women and children. He even shot point-blank a baby, claiming in court that he thought it was a 'small man'. Disgusting. He claimed that he had been ordered to wipe everyone out, but the higher ups denied this. (Even though there was a very real attempt to shush the case up at least until the war was done)

In the end, he was found guilty, but only served 3 years under house arrest. There's some western justice for you.

To be fair, a lot of unsavory stuff is necessary in the course of war. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't drop the hammer on people that can't keep it discreet.

dogma wrote:To be fair, a lot of unsavory stuff is necessary in the course of war. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't drop the hammer on people that can't keep it discreet.

I...am I reading this post correctly, dogma?!?