Iraq........again

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by StaticX

note how I said 'a' rather than 'the' which implies that I wasn't refering to the soldiers who are alredy there. A lot can happen in 4 years. As for international support, Iran is the greater threat when compared to Iraq.

the usa doesnt have enough troops or money to invade yet another country. they hardly have enough for iraq and afganistan.
all i can see happening is israel trying an airstrike. if that would work i dont know.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Iran began construction on their heavy water facility at Arak in 1996 and their enrichment facility at Natanz sometime in 2000. Bush's axis of evil speech was in 2002.

if thats true i was wrong, but still you have to admit that they dramatically increased their effort after bush went nuts

[StaticX]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

the usa doesnt have enough troops or money to invade yet another country. they hardly have enough for iraq and afganistan.
all i can see happening is israel trying an airstrike. if that would work i dont know.

Well, when the US military bases are set up in Iraq, which they will be, the USA can perform all the air strikes that they like, with the added bonus that Israel won't be nuked. Which would be worse in US (and the US Jewish lobby eyes), a nuclear strike in Israel or in Iraq?

[Dante Hicks]

Given the last couple of hundred years of Ethno-European (for want of a better term) intervention any "third world" leader not persuing some kind of weapons programme could probably be acussed of negligence or naivety.

[Nusselt]

Agree with dante, taking aside the niceness - or lack of - from the relevant countries, after iraq if i was on the third world shit list particularly the axis of evil id be ****ing developing those nukes sharpish.

Going back to the original post, it is a mess we'll be up on the two year aniversary of the invasion come march and there isn't really a lot to show for it. And before the obligatory 'but they're free' well not really they haven't put a democratically elected leadership in and the 'coalition of the willing'* hasn't left the country. Even the elections in january are only for a transitional government to right the constitution etc. As has been said there are still troops in the former yugoslavia.

BTW i thought it was really difficult for the US to hold 100K+ troops in deployment? wasn't that the reason that the two gulf wars had to be started? so how come it can be afforded now?

* who chooses these names!!!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

Agree with dante, taking aside the niceness - or lack of - from the relevant countries, after iraq if i was on the third world shit list particularly the axis of evil id be ****ing developing those nukes sharpish.

It should be noted at this point that those governments are shit and deserve to be removed and if you were the leader of one of those countries you'd be a tyrant.

[Mr_Blob]

The best option for the US of dealing with an Iraian nuclear plant would be to send in cruise missiles or air strikes. Isreal did the same to Iraqs nuclear plant in 1972, they just got up and bombed it without caring what anyone else thought. However if they did do this, Iran would be pissed off so bad that they might send an army into iraq.
The US would love to do the same to a North Korean nuclear plant however as NK has a huge mobilised army on their border ready to go (700000 troops with 11000 artilary guns all in range of souel) the result of such an attack would be a full scale war. Not to mention the loss of cheap imported Hyundai's and Daewoo's..... plus all the other stuff that SK make.

[Mr_Blob]

BTW i thought it was really difficult for the US to hold 100K+ troops in deployment? wasn't that the reason that the two gulf wars had to be started? so how come it can be afforded now?

Not sure what you're trying to say here. However the first gulf war was totally financed by Saudi Arabia. They're still in debt from it. If the US didnt send troops to Saudi very quickly after Iraq went into Kuwait they would have gone through into Saudi as well and nothing would have stopped them. Of course if we took the hands off approach this wouldnt have been a hinderance to our economies. The west would have still been buying the oil, it'd just be from Iraq and not Saudi. Then instead of Saudi spending their money on (? whatever they do with it??) we would've had Iraq spending billions and billions of extra dollars on their army and weapons programs. Anyway its all history now as they say.

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It should be noted at this point that those governments are shit and deserve to be removed and if you were the leader of one of those countries you'd be a tyrant.

eh? i did say taking away the niceness

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

The best option for the US of dealing with an Iraian nuclear plant would be to send in cruise missiles or air strikes. Isreal did the same to Iraqs nuclear plant in 1972, they just got up and bombed it without caring what anyone else thought. However if they did do this, Iran would be pissed off so bad that they might send an army into iraq.
The US would love to do the same to a North Korean nuclear plant however as NK has a huge mobilised army on their border ready to go (700000 troops with 11000 artilary guns all in range of souel) the result of such an attack would be a full scale war. Not to mention the loss of cheap imported Hyundai's and Daewoo's..... plus all the other stuff that SK make.

You forgot to mention all the scud missle launchers that could easily fire ballistic missles in range of Japan.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

eh? i did say taking away the niceness

I just don't really see the value in those sorts of hypotheticals to be honest.

[G.K Zhukov]

I agree with Dante.

Anyone who's president in a 2nd or 3rd world country should be put to court if he/she doesnt try getting nukes and intercontinental missies. Nobody invades a country who got nukes.
Besides, when Israel who occupies palestine, parts of syria and lebanon is allowed to have nukes, why not Iran?

and to Mr Blob: The Saudies are one of the biggest buyers of american military hardware in the world.

The argumant that Saddam Hussain, the rulers of Iraq and Kim-b0y in North Korea is dictators isnt a good one. The dictators of Burma, Belorussia, Sudan and Libya are all safe, even though they dont move towords democrazy.
As the smarter of you have noticed, democrazy is just an exuse witch is used when the imperialist states wants to expand or control their empires.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

I agree with Dante.

Anyone who's president in a 2nd or 3rd world country should be put to court if he/she doesnt try getting nukes and intercontinental missies. Nobody invades a country who got nukes.
Besides, when Israel who occupies palestine, parts of syria and lebanon is allowed to have nukes, why not Iran?

Well, let's see which third world countries are "known" to have, are trying, or once tried to get nukes:

India (has nukes)
Israel (has nukes)
Pakistan (has nukes)
the former apartheid government of South Africa (probably had nukes but dismantled their program)
North Korea (probably has nukes)
the former government of Iraq (was close to having nukes, but since dismantled)
Iran (close)
Libya (started but not that far along--now dismantling)

Most of these countries have been (or were) involved in sustained conflicts with one or more of their neighbors. Many have yet to sign a peace treaty. Of course, many of these countries are/were also repressive cesspools, but I don't think that alone is sufficient. I believe the existance of a sustained conflict with one's neighbor(s) is what really drives third world nuclear weapons programs (not that a paranoid tyrannical dictator or two doesn't help).

Fortunately, the vast majority of third world countries generally get along with their neighbors and have no need for your's and Dante's advice.

The argumant that Saddam Hussain, the rulers of Iraq and Kim-b0y in North Korea is dictators isnt a good one. The dictators of Burma, Belorussia, Sudan and Libya are all safe, even though they dont move towords democrazy.

But how can they be "safe" if they don't have nukes? You've just torpedoed your thesis.

As the smarter of you have noticed, democrazy is just an exuse witch is used when the imperialist states wants to expand or control their empires.

And the threat of first world invasion is just an excuse which is used by regimes to develop nukes with which to intimidate their neighbors. India's and Pakistan's nukes are not a major threat to the first world (assuming they don't sell them to terrorists ofc), but they are a threat to each other. Ditto Israel and Iran/iraq. Etc.

The biggest losers in a third world nuclear arms race is the third world. First, because most third world countries can't afford it; and second, because when these weapons are used (and realistically it's only a matter of time) it'll most likely be against one of their third world neighbors.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Well, let's see which third world countries are "known" to have, are trying, or once tried to get nukes:

India (has nukes)
Israel (has nukes)
Pakistan (has nukes)
the former apartheid government of South Africa (probably had nukes but dismantled their program)
North Korea (probably has nukes)
the former government of Iraq (was close to having nukes, but since dismantled)
Iran (close)
Libya (started but not that far along--now dismantling)

Most of these countries have been (or were) involved in sustained conflicts with one or more of their neighbors. Many have yet to sign a peace treaty. Of course, many of these countries are/were also repressive cesspools, but I don't think that alone is sufficient. I believe the existance of a sustained conflict with one's neighbor(s) is what really drives third world nuclear weapons programs (not that a paranoid tyrannical dictator or two doesn't help).

Fortunately, the vast majority of third world countries generally get along with their neighbors and have no need for your's and Dante's advice.

But how can they be "safe" if they don't have nukes? You've just torpedoed your thesis.

And the threat of first world invasion is just an excuse which is used by regimes to develop nukes with which to intimidate their neighbors. India's and Pakistan's nukes are not a major threat to the first world (assuming they don't sell them to terrorists ofc), but they are a threat to each other. Ditto Israel and Iran/iraq. Etc.

The biggest losers in a third world nuclear arms race is the third world. First, because most third world countries can't afford it; and second, because when these weapons are used (and realistically it's only a matter of time) it'll most likely be against one of their third world neighbors.

You miss the whole point. Will India attack Pakistan now, and risk getting a nuke in return? Dont think so. Nobody has to this day attacked a country with nukes. Is this a purely luck? I dont think so. Would South-America be bullyed around with stronger states with nukes? Dont think so.
I dont buy into that iraq was anywhere close to developing nukes. First of all becouse they dont have an industrial base to speak off, they dont have alot of "brains" (that could be imported though) and they would have to aquire urianium/plutonium. The only time Hussains regime managed to make "weapons of mass destruction" was when the american state and american companies helped him with it. I wonder if Hussain is sitting there in his cell, wondering where the days when he was best pal with Rummy went, hehe. Hell, the iraqi state wasnt even able to manfucture T-72s on license, and you expect them to make nukes. If it was so easy, every country would have it.

And its not that Botswana is afraid of Namibia, its more that they need to protect themselfs from DeBeers heh. Most other countries needs nukes in order to have a deterent against the big western states, in case they one day wants to go an upopular road (read: not let themselfs be bullyied by the west, f.x dont pay debt taken up when the country was a military dictatorship).

This leads me over to where you think Im torpedoed my theses.
In a EU-argument I was attending two years ago, there was a vice-leader of the young conservatives who told a story about Vaclav Havel. Havel was sitting in a aircraft, flying over the Chech Republic and Germany, and saw that there was peace. This was suppose to be a solid argument for why EU was a peacebuilder (but thats another story).
But ask yourself, why should Germany attack the Chechs? Why should they bomb Skoda works? A large part of chech industry and firms are directly owned by german citizens (Skoda partly by the Nidersachsen federal state). Nobody wants to spend money bombing things they own themselfs.
No slave owner kills his slave, as long as the slave stay down and work for him. But if the slave refuse to be a slave.... oh boy, and thats where you need the nukes. Besides, it helps not having oil

Lets compare the cost of nukes versus what you can get from them. First of all, lets say you prime minister of Argentina.
Your defence bugdet is 1billion dollars. You might be able to cut 300mill. dollars each year, becouse you have this deterent. 300x20 years = 6billion dollars. And 20 years isnt a optimistic calculation off how long it lasts. The benefit of beeing able to not fear reprisals for nationalising US property in Argentina is hard to set a price tag on, but it could be worth a lot. And so on. It gives you a greater freedom in deciding Argentinas future without beeing fearful of invasion.

Nukes to Iran = No US Invasion of Iran.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

You miss the whole point. Will India attack Pakistan now, and risk getting a nuke in return? Dont think so. Nobody has to this day attacked a country with nukes.

That is just nonsense. Several countries with nukes have been attacked: Israel had nukes in the mid-60s and yet was attacked by Syria and Egypt in 1973 (the Yom Kippur war). The UK has nukes and yet was attacked by Argentina in the Falklands. The US has nukes and yet was attacked by al Qaeda. Nuclear weapons are a bit of an albratross--countries risk international condemnation if they use nukes so the conventional wisdom is not to use them except as a last resort (by which time they may be too late anyway).

I dont buy into that iraq was anywhere close to developing nukes. First of all becouse they dont have an industrial base to speak off, they dont have alot of "brains" (that could be imported though) and they would have to aquire urianium/plutonium.

Iraq's nuclear weapons program peaked in 1991 and was well documented by Hans Blix et al before it was dismantled. They were within a few years of completion.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

That is just nonsense. Several countries with nukes have been attacked: Israel had nukes in the mid-60s and yet was attacked by Syria and Egypt in 1973 (the Yom Kippur war). The UK has nukes and yet was attacked by Argentina in the Falklands. The US has nukes and yet was attacked by al Qaeda.

I think this is a bit disengenuous. The United States couldn't respond with a nuclear strike after 9/11 simply because there wasn't anywhere to hit particularly. I mean, the US invaded Afghanistan and that hasn't stopped Al Qaeda particularly.

But in any case, the other two examples you give the "defending" country didn't need to respond with nuclear strikes as they could win on conventional terms. Why would someone respond with nuclear force if they didn't need to?

(The original point by G.K. Zhukov was still incorrect however)

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think this is a bit disengenuous. The United States couldn't respond with a nuclear strike after 9/11 simply because there wasn't anywhere to hit particularly.

They had a number of training camps, some in remote areas. They may have been abandoned by 9/11 though.

But in any case, the other two examples you give the "defending" country didn't need to respond with nuclear strikes as they could win on conventional terms. Why would someone respond with nuclear force if they didn't need to?

The point is, they had nuclear weapons and they were still attacked. I mean, do you really think the Argentinians and Arabs knew they were going to lose and figured 'What the hell, we haven't had a humiliating military defeat in a while--how bad could it be?' More likely they expected to win (at least a limited war), or maybe they were counting on world opinion stepping in and stopping the fighting after their initial gains. In any case, they miscalculated.

I'm sure that when the nuclear balloon finally goes up (and as I stated above I think it's only a matter of time), it will be the result of some similar miscalculation. What was "supposed" to be a minor clash will escalate, an ally that someone was counting on decides not to intervene, the fait accompli isn't, expected international support doesn't materalize, etc.

(The original point by G.K. Zhukov was still incorrect however)

I though he was agreeing with you?

[JonnyBGood]

I always thought the "dictators are more willing to use nuclear weapons" argument a bit thin. Not to stretch induction a bit further than it can go but the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons was a representative democracy. Surely any dictator worth his salt will realise that using nukes will result in him being hunted down to the ends of the earth instead of getting to live out the rest of his days in luxurious splendour.

Obviously religious fundamentalists who have demonstrated a willingness, nay a desire, to die for their cause are a slightly different case.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

They had a number of training camps, some in remote areas. They may have been abandoned by 9/11 though.

Yeah, because it would have been practical to nuke them.

You mention a limited war, and that's exactly the point. The United States attacking a country like Iran (if we invision a Iraq style invasion) wouldn't be fighting a limited war. They'd be there to invade the country, remove the government, etc. In such a situation use of a "last hope card" like nuclear weapons becomes a lot easier to imagine.

I though he was agreeing with you?

He may have been, but the specific wording of his point was incorrect, as you pointed out.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, because it would have been practical to nuke them.

Not politically and probably not cost effectively, but I was just responding to your assertion that there were no physical targets.

You mention a limited war, and that's exactly the point. The United States attacking a country like Iran (if we invision a Iraq style invasion) wouldn't be fighting a limited war.

And is the US (or some other first world country) the only country that will or is even the most likely to attack them? As I've stated, most of these countries already have a long history of conflict with their neighbors. You seem to be ignoring that.

They'd be there to invade the country, remove the government, etc. In such a situation use of a "last hope card" like nuclear weapons becomes a lot easier to imagine.

The kicker is that nuclear weapons aren't really very effective for defense, particularily against troops who are already in your country and reasonably dispersed in and around your cities (you end blowing up your own people and contaminating your own country; yeah, your typical dictator might not care, but those who have to carry out his orders might). You really need a reliable delivery system (i.e., missiles) that can reach the enemy's cities--then you have a deterrent.

[CamelToe]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

You forgot to mention all the scud missle launchers that could easily fire ballistic missles in range of Japan.

Or their gigantic-yet-ill-equipped-security-council-member slash commie ally to the north.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Not politically and probably not cost effectively, but I was just responding to your assertion that there were no physical targets.

Fair enough, although I'd still stand by my original assertion that the United States didn't have anywhere it could nuke in response to 9/11.

And is the US (or some other first world country) the only country that will or is even the most likely to attack them? As I've stated, most of these countries already have a long history of conflict with their neighbors. You seem to be ignoring that.

I'm not ignoring it, it's just completely irrelevent. Obviously countries could face attacks from their neighbours as well as first world intervention. Why is that pertinent to this matter?

You really need a reliable delivery system (i.e., missiles) that can reach the enemy's cities--then you have a deterrent.

Well, yeah. I'd imagine most people when they say "nuclear weapons" are considering both the missiles and the bombs themselves. This seems fairly obvious.

[Texan]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Fair enough, although I'd still stand by my original assertion that the United States didn't have anywhere it could nuke in response to 9/11.

How about Mecca during the next Hajj? That would have been a good target to start with nukes. The United States could then blame Israel. The United Nations could condemn Israel's actions... again. Everyone would be happy.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Texan

How about Mecca during the next Hajj? That would have been a good target to start with nukes. The United States could then blame Israel. The United Nations could condemn Israel's actions... again. Everyone would be happy.

Except the Arabs, who would vow an eternity of revenge against Israel and its master the United States

I'd consider moving to Norway if that happened. I really would

[Texan]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Except the Arabs, who would vow an eternity of revenge against Israel and its master the United States

Didn't the Arabs already do that?

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Texan

Didn't the Arabs already do that?

Most of it is the continued US presence/action in the Middle East. If you get the troops out of there, and stop backing Israel (both of which will most likely never happen), the backbone of the resistance has no motive.

It doesn't mean that there wouldn't be the few extremists who will always hate America, but it would make things a lot harder.

The statement "they hates us because of our way of life/democracy" just isn't true. People don't care enough to attack others because of their way of life, there's always a tangible benefit behind it. In this case, getting their land/sovereignty back

[Texan]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Most of it is the continued US presence/action in the Middle East. If you get the troops out of there, and stop backing Israel (both of which will most likely never happen), the backbone of the resistance has no motive.

It doesn't mean that there wouldn't be the few extremists who will always hate America, but it would make things a lot harder.

The statement "they hates us because of our way of life/democracy" just isn't true. People don't care enough to attack others because of their way of life, there's always a tangible benefit behind it. In this case, getting their land/sovereignty back

I was thinking more specifically about the Israelis. The U.S. presence is fairly recent compared to the animosity of the Arabs against Israel.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Texan

I was thinking more specifically about the Israelis. The U.S. presence is fairly recent compared to the animosity of the Arabs against Israel.

Since the Brits and French left the Mid-East, they haven't been the target of most of the hatred. It's the people who are currently on their land. If the Israelis give them their land back, the animosity will be less.

[Perle]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

You miss the whole point. Will India attack Pakistan now, and risk getting a nuke in return? Dont think so. Nobody has to this day attacked a country with nukes. Is this a purely luck? I dont think so. Would South-America be bullyed around with stronger states with nukes? Dont think so.
I dont buy into that iraq was anywhere close to developing nukes. First of all becouse they dont have an industrial base to speak off, they dont have alot of "brains" (that could be imported though) and they would have to aquire urianium/plutonium. The only time Hussains regime managed to make "weapons of mass destruction" was when the american state and american companies helped him with it. I wonder if Hussain is sitting there in his cell, wondering where the days when he was best pal with Rummy went, hehe. Hell, the iraqi state wasnt even able to manfucture T-72s on license, and you expect them to make nukes. If it was so easy, every country would have it.

And its not that Botswana is afraid of Namibia, its more that they need to protect themselfs from DeBeers heh. Most other countries needs nukes in order to have a deterent against the big western states, in case they one day wants to go an upopular road (read: not let themselfs be bullyied by the west, f.x dont pay debt taken up when the country was a military dictatorship).

This leads me over to where you think Im torpedoed my theses.
In a EU-argument I was attending two years ago, there was a vice-leader of the young conservatives who told a story about Vaclav Havel. Havel was sitting in a aircraft, flying over the Chech Republic and Germany, and saw that there was peace. This was suppose to be a solid argument for why EU was a peacebuilder (but thats another story).
But ask yourself, why should Germany attack the Chechs? Why should they bomb Skoda works? A large part of chech industry and firms are directly owned by german citizens (Skoda partly by the Nidersachsen federal state). Nobody wants to spend money bombing things they own themselfs.
No slave owner kills his slave, as long as the slave stay down and work for him. But if the slave refuse to be a slave.... oh boy, and thats where you need the nukes. Besides, it helps not having oil

Lets compare the cost of nukes versus what you can get from them. First of all, lets say you prime minister of Argentina.
Your defence bugdet is 1billion dollars. You might be able to cut 300mill. dollars each year, becouse you have this deterent. 300x20 years = 6billion dollars. And 20 years isnt a optimistic calculation off how long it lasts. The benefit of beeing able to not fear reprisals for nationalising US property in Argentina is hard to set a price tag on, but it could be worth a lot. And so on. It gives you a greater freedom in deciding Argentinas future without beeing fearful of invasion.

Nukes to Iran = No US Invasion of Iran.

bravo, well said

[Mr_Blob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunday8pm
You forgot to mention all the scud missle launchers that could easily fire ballistic missles in range of Japan.
Or their gigantic-yet-ill-equipped-security-council-member slash commie ally to the north.

You're right Sunday, i did. Well spotted. NK would also threaten Japan, thats another reason why the US is trying for a diplomatic solution.

China is no longer a communist state. They are also no threat to the west. Their aim is to modernise their country and improve its standard of living for its population. They're doing this by using foreign investment to generate employment. I think China would become more of a threat if anti-globalisation fans got their way and high trade barriers were reimplemented against china and other third/second world countries.

[Mr_Blob]

What are the second world countries of the world? They never really get a mention. Do you think they feel lonely or left out because of that?

[Mr_Blob]

Zuhkov, your whole nuke theory is dangerous and wrong. Its like saying if everyone had a gun there'd be no more arguments because everyone would be afraid of the consequences of doing so. It just doesnt work.

The more countries that have nuclear weapons the greater the chance that someone will use them. Most weapons and armies are built in response to what their neighbours have. They generally build equal measures, thats the deterant. If one third world country built a nuclear weapon their neighbours would feel obliged to do the same. Beleive it or not but the west is acutally trying to stop proliferation and they are themselves reducing the number of these types of weapons.

Nukes to Iran = No US Invasion of Iran.

There may be no US invasion and occupation of Iran but that wouldnt stop the US doing a strike against them. Iran doesnt have the missiles to hit back. I dont thik it will ever come to this stage however. The US would most likely attack them before they finished building their weapons.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

What are the second world countries of the world? They never really get a mention. Do you think they feel lonely or left out because of that?

The "Second World" used to apply to the Soviet Block countries.

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by Mr_Blob

Beleive it or not but the west is acutally trying to stop proliferation and they are themselves reducing the number of these types of weapons.

yeah but the us is developing the next generation of tactical warheads at the same time


http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0659-7596r.htm

[Mr_Blob]

yeah but the us is developing the next generation of tactical warheads at the same time

Yes. Rather then using a MOAB the 10 tonne or so conventional bomb that needs a cargo plane to drop it they want to develop a mini nuke with the equivilent fire power that a fighter plane can carry.

Makes me think of dr evil and mini me.......