Is the fat in the fire?

[crunch]

We all know that the Administration has NOT taken the use of force off the table when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambitions, but would you believe the Democrats are right there with him?.... kindda.

Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable, new House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the party leadership position.

The Maryland Democrat said the view is shared by his party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the Republicans on Iran.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674368&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Then there is BoatBuoy's link to this... one he beat me to. :|

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a “last resort”, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.
Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.



Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.

Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.

link

And last, but certainly not least (8 pages! ) a very astute analysis of the whole situation... from the Israeli point of view.

An uncontrollable region
In April, following close to two years of work, Dan Meridor presented his report on Israel's defense doctrine to then-defense minister Shaul Mofaz. The report, the first of its kind, made practical recommendations concerning defense strategy: Develop anti-missile systems, upgrade the National Security Council and prepare the IDF for low-intensity conflicts.

An additional and no less important recommendation was: under no circumstances to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. According to Meridor's report, success for Iran would set off a race to join the nuclear club throughout the Middle East.

"The region," the report states, "would become uncontrollable."

That day might not be too far away, With Iran plunging ahead with its program in defiance of the UN and the international community, Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates announced in early November that they intended to begin upgrading their nuclear energy programs. Of the six, the most advanced by far are Egypt and Algeria. Turkey is also reported to be toying with the idea of starting a nuclear program.

"To remain a player in the region, these Arab countries will have no choice but to quickly develop nuclear weapons," says a senior government official responsible for formulating strategic policy.

The countries that would be most affected by Iranian success, Meridor's report claims, are Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both heavily dependent on American military support and afraid to lose their place of dominance in the region. Saudi Arabia is a leading Sunni power while Iran is a Shiite-dominated country.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1167467659996&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

Is the fat in the fire?

I dunno. Is she singing yet?

 

[crunch]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

I don't know yet either ... WWIII might get as ugly as WWII... or much, much worse. And make no mistake about it, the war on terror is a world war.

 

[ricksrster]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

The new Congress will tell the bad guys , " we are sorry for getting you so upset. We just want to get along. Please don't nuke anybody".
The bad guys will reply, "OK, since you just want to be friends we won't nuke anybody".

 

[crunch]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

Except Israel...

New York

Portland

Seatlle

 

[JB]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

This whole nuclear proliferation issue sticks in my craw.

I know there is a treaty in which countries that have nuclear and/or thermonuclear weapons got together with a bunch that don't and agreed that nobody else can have them. Don't know if Iran and N. Korea signed on to that.

I also don't know if the treaty says that nobody else can have nuclear power generation.

I have a problem with the ethics of it all.

Suppose in a rough neighborhood a few people have guns and decide that to keep peace nobody else can have a gun. If you try to get a gun they threaten to shoot you so that you can't shoot anybody else. That just doesn't seem right to me.

Is there something wrong with my ethics on this? What am I missing?

 

[rolmops]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

JB,you have a very valid point,except that here the very fate of the planet is at stake.

Historically there has never been a big difference between republican and democrats in the foreign policy approach.
Foreign policy usually does not influence the american voter to the point where he will vote differently because of it.except maybe when there is a war that goes sour.
As long as our foreign interests are the same,so will our policy be the same.We will just use different means to reach the same goal.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

Suppose in a rough neighborhood a few people have guns and decide that to keep peace nobody else can have a gun. If you try to get a gun they threaten to shoot you so that you can't shoot anybody else.

Are you talking about a BB gun or a 155mm artillery piece. Rules are different for each.

 

[JB]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

In my example I am talking about deadly weapons, probably not including air rifles. If you can kill your neighbor from a distance I don't think it much matters whether you use a 9mm handgun or a 16" naval rifle, except for the distance from which you can kill him/her.

My problem is with denying someone parity in a possible future conflict, placing them at the mercy of those who are armed.

Israel has nukes and is believed willing to use them to ensure her security. Her hostile, nukeless neighbors are therefore inhibited from provocation on a large scale except in an attack of suicidal stupidity. I can see the great danger to world peace if hostile nations like Iran get nukes because they are exhibiting suicidal stupidity already, but I still don't see the justice in denying them the security that Israel has.

Perhaps it is rationalized, as rolmops suggests, by the notion that being fair might also be a case of suicidal stupidity.

 

[technostingray]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

Oops wrong thread, should have said when JB tells Crunchy to tell rolmops, to tell QC to tell.......edit

 

[JasonJ]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

I guess Jb that goes back to the "who are we to tell anyone anything" arguement. Of course, Iran is a unique situation. Iran is composed of an ideology that everyone should die who does not share Irans belief system. That makes them very dangerous, and if a person were to have given me a choice between the futile mess in Iraq or removing Irans nuke capability, I would have chosen an Iran option. It doesn't help that Iran could control the world's current major oil supply, and I could see them simply cutting off any western country altogether, which would destroy those countries, ours included. Just picture what would happen if our oil was cut off...

Some would bring up North Korea, but they are very different than Iran. North Korea has never said everyone who doesn't share North Korean values needs to die. They want to be left alone, and they are so paranoid that they will go to any lengths to achieve that.

So in the unique case of Iran, something needs to be done, and if Isreal is the one that does it, well, I'm okay with that. They face a much greater threat than we do.

 

[technostingray]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

Bookmark>

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

In my example I am talking about deadly weapons, probably not including air rifles. If you can kill your neighbor from a distance I don't think it much matters whether you use a 9mm handgun or a 16" naval rifle, except for the distance from which you can kill him/her.

My problem is with denying someone parity in a possible future conflict, placing them at the mercy of those who are armed.

Israel has nukes and is believed willing to use them to ensure her security. Her hostile, nukeless neighbors are therefore inhibited from provocation on a large scale except in an attack of suicidal stupidity. I can see the great danger to world peace if hostile nations like Iran get nukes because they are exhibiting suicidal stupidity already, but I still don't see the justice in denying them the security that Israel has.

Perhaps it is rationalized, as rolmops suggests, by the notion that being fair might also be a case of suicidal stupidity.

JB: I think your reasoning is very sound if you apply it to 2nd amendment issues. All individual US citizens are relatively powerless, (or much less powerfull) as compared to their Governments, (local, state, federal), so the "justice in denying them security" concept has a great deal of merrit in that situation. When you are talking soverign States on the planet we all live on: I don't think equal access to all weaponry for all parties is a valid way to consider the issue of nukes. Life is NOT FAIR OR JUST, (nor has it ever been at any time), and the 800lb gorillas get to have it their way, fortunately for the world we are now the sole 800LB gorilla for a period of time. Respectfully JR

 

[technostingray]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

In my example I am talking about deadly weapons, probably not including air rifles. If you can kill your neighbor from a distance I don't think it much matters whether you use a 9mm handgun or a 16" naval rifle, except for the distance from which you can kill him/her.

My problem is with denying someone parity in a possible future conflict, placing them at the mercy of those who are armed.

Israel has nukes and is believed willing to use them to ensure her security. Her hostile, nukeless neighbors are therefore inhibited from provocation on a large scale except in an attack of suicidal stupidity. I can see the great danger to world peace if hostile nations like Iran get nukes because they are exhibiting suicidal stupidity already, but I still don't see the justice in denying them the security that Israel has.

Perhaps it is rationalized, as rolmops suggests, by the notion that being fair might also be a case of suicidal stupidity.

JB: I think your reasoning is very sound if you apply it to 2nd amendment issues. All individual US citizens are relatively powerless, (or much less powerfull) as compared to their Governments, (local, state, federal), so the "justice in denying them security" concept has a great deal of merrit in that situation. When you are talking soverign States on the planet we all live on: I don't think equal access to all weaponry for all parties is a valid way to consider the issue of nukes. Life is NOT FAIR OR JUST, (nor has it ever been at any time), and the 800lb gorillas get to have it their way, fortunately for the world we are now the sole 800LB gorilla for a period of time. Respectfully JR

Aha, the doomsday gap.........

 

[crunch]

Re: Is the fat in the fire?

Iran is a unique situation. Iran is composed of an ideology that everyone should die who does not share Irans belief system.

Iran isn't that unique.... most of the Moslem counties feel the same way, they just aren't as vocal (stupid) as Iran.

It doesn't help that Iran could control the world's current major oil supply, and I could see them simply cutting off any western country altogether, which would destroy those countries, ours included. Just picture what would happen if our oil was cut off...

In a worst case scenario, Iran could only cut off 20% of the world supply, and that only by controlling the whole Persian Gulf... what do you think the chances of that happening for more than 15 minutes are? Maybe there is a reason President Bush just appointed an Admiral to over all authority in that region.