Justus For All

Suggestion -

Go see if you can find some of the reports describing the likely consequences of India and Pakistan carrying out (successful) nuclear weapons tests within a month of each other - like this one for example.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make Probligo. I also don’t see where that link describes any likely consequences of India and Pakistan’s nuclear tests from a decade ago. It seems to rather be proposals of consequences that should be imposed.

I certainly am not happy that Pakistan is a nuclear power. India is somewhat less troubling as it is a more stable nation. Iran would be more troubling than either of those.

Probably, Dave, because you do not get the same sense of ironic deja vu from the rhetoric against Iran.

India and Pakistan? Who worries about their nuclear arsenals these days? Do you? Apparently. Well, that the Islamists have nukes. Does Bush? Seems not - the subject has been well off the table while Pakistan helps out against Iraq.

Ten or fifteen years ago, the “problematic” danger was perceived to be India rather than Pakistan. That comes from that first link. Now we are led to believe (as reliable as anything that has come from Washington in the past six years) that Pakistan had a leading role in Iran developing nuclear weapons technology. As that page shows, Iran’s nuclear programme goes back well before the Islamic Revolution into the 1960’s…

However, according to recently revealed documents discovered in Tehran after the revolution, in the late 1970s Iran and Israel discussed a plan to modify Israel’s surface-to-surface Jericho missiles for use by Iran—missiles that could be equipped with nuclear weapons. And, despite Akbar Etemad’s beliefs, the Western intelligence community had long suspected that the Shah’s nuclear scientists conducted research into military applications. Suspected activities at the TNRC include nuclear weapons design, plutonium extraction and laser-enrichment research. By the time of the Islamic Revolution in January 1979, Iran’s nuclear program was considered one the most advanced in the Middle East.

and…

Pakistan and China signed long-term nuclear cooperation agreements with Iran in 1987 and 1990, respectively. Accords with both countries involved training personnel, and in the case of China, the accord included an agreement to provide Iran with a 27KW miniature neutron source reactor (MNSR) and two 300MW Qinshan power reactors. Western intelligence suspected that Pakistan, which many estimated had succeeded in manufacturing a nuclear bomb in 1986, provided Iran with nuclear assistance. Reports in Western press and leaks from Western government and intelligence sources indicated that Pakistan had trained Iranian scientists in plutonium extraction and possibly gas centrifuge enrichment research

Who knows? Perhaps Bush might even be able to persuade the Pakistanis to take out the Iranian “research centres” - as a weapon and delivery system “test” you understand… - as a reward for their assistance in the GWOT. Mind you, such an action on the part of the Pakistanis would be rather like lobbing stinkbombs upwind instead of downwind. There is a sense of “rightness” in that idea as well given that the US has already sourced much of Iran’s capability to “rogue scientists” in Pakistan.

What it comes down to is “who yer best friends are…”. If you are a good buddy of TGWB (The Great Whitehouse Boarder) then you may be permitted to have nukes. If you are not, then you become a suspected member of the Axis of Evil.

Oh, “boarder” is the kiwi version of “lodger”…

As far as I know, you are the first person who has propossed the solution to this problem is for the U.S. to arrange for Pakistan to launch nuclear weapons at Iran. That you think you have discovered a clever scheme of the Bushes simply reinforces that you are living in some sort of alternate reality.

Perhaps a few deep breaths would be in order.

There are several factual mistakes. First off, we didn’t normalize relations with Pakistan (which were extremely strained after their nuclear tests in the 90s) in exchange for help in Iraq. That deal was made in exchange for help in Afghanistan and in prosecuting the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaida. One can of course argue that that wasn’t a good deal to me, but one should at least know what the deal was about when one does make that arguement. Typically one wouldn’t refer to the Government of Pakistan as ‘Islamist’ Musharaf’s government, although hardly a beacon of light, is a secular one. Obviously though there are many elements within his government that have Islamist sympathy’s, one of the diplomatic challenges in the WOT is not pushing Pakistan too hard and causing a backlash against the secular government there.

Obviously, dealing with Pakistan is tricky. It is equally obvious that we cannot prevent Pakistan from aquiring nuclear weapons, as Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. That is a done deal. Whether or not more action should have been taken in the past to prevent that, it is now impossible to go back in time.

Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons. Proliferation is still an issue in regards to that nation.

“As far as I know, you are the first person who has proposed the solution to this problem is for the U.S. to arrange for Pakistan to launch nuclear weapons at Iran.”

Ummm, yup!

“That you think you have discovered a clever scheme of the Bushes simply reinforces that you are living in some sort of alternate reality. ”

A clever scheme…? substitute “I have a cunning plan. A plan more cunning than a weasel up your trousers…” Bush would never think of anything as fiendish!! IT is ALL my idea!!

Actually, I just enjoyed the potential poetic justice involved given that much of the kick start to Iran’s nuclear programme came from the US to the Shah in the late ’50s early ’60s and from Pakistan in the late ’80s and beyond.

Yes, you are right about Afghanistan and assistance from Pakistan. But that detail doesn’t change my line of thought.

In the end I go back to my original “Catch 22″ defense scenario.

“Iran, whether intended or not, has made itself an enemy of the USA. The USA has nuclear weapons. The USA might decide to attack Iran to neutralise that “enemy”. Therefore Iran must have nuclear weapons with which to defend itself. If Iran has nuclear weapons it is a danger to both the region and to the USA. Therefore it becomes an imperative to neutralise that danger. That makes the likelihood of USA attack on Iran more probable. Therefore the need to have a nuclear deterrent becomes an Iranian imperative…”

You DO live in some kind of weird-ass alternate reality, Probligo, if you think the mullahs of Iran are motivated by some kind of 1970’s-era nuclear deterrence strategy.

Pablo,

Why do you think Iran wants nuclear weapons? For world domination? To bomb the US?

If that is the belief of the US administration then the paranoia in your country is wwaaay worse than I ever feared.

Yeah sure, the Iranians have rattled their swords at Israel. Israel has already attacked Iran once. You going to decide who is right, who is wrong there? Substitute “Israel” for “US” in my little Catch 22 problem… see what happens?

For that matter, why does the US still have nuclear weapons?

Why does Iran want nucular weapons? Well, quite obviously, it is to further their ends.

Probligo, what do you conclude from the OTHER means by which they further their ends? Set aside mere words from Mad Ahmadinejad. Providing Hizballah with arms and funds—as much as $100 million per year—for its terrorist operations in Lebanon and around the world. Funneling $120 million (in 2006) to Hamas, the terrorist group that controls the Palestinian government. Facilitating the training of Iraqi Shiite militias attacking members of other sects within that country. Calling for the destruction of Arab states
that recognize Israel, etc.

To anyone who is the least bit familiar with the writings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the export of the Iranian Revolution — a quaint goal, I know, smacking as it does of L’Internationale and all that — can still be seen motivating Iran’s moves towards regional hegemony. As far as “who is right who is wrong” vis a vis Israel and Iran, I will quite easily support the Israelis on that one. This might not come as easily to you, Probligo, your having contributed so many antisemitic and anti-Israel comments on this blog in the past. Indeed, the destruction of Israel seems to be a goal you share with Ahmadinejad, so you ain’t exactly the avatar of credibility when you front a permissive attitude towards nuclear Islamists.

“…nucular…” Pablo? Shows how deep the propaganda and paranoia runs, huh. Down this way it is still “…nuclear…” and we still do not allow nuclear arms or power on NZ territory. Oh, I geddit - it is a cunning plan, more cunning than a weasel up your trousers… they are not “nuclear” weapons; they are a new kind called “nucular” weapons. Brilliant!!

That aside -
________________________________________________

Please, enunciate for me the “inalienable God-given rights” of existance and defence that you attribute to Israel.

Then, so that I am not to be accused of anti-semitism, you can explain to me and to the rest of the world why any other nation (from Albania to Zaire) should not enjoy the same rights of existance and defence. Oh, and “Axis of evil” is not a reason. It ranks alongside “nucular”.

If you can do that honestly and objectively then you might have started to gain an insight into how the ROW sees the self-taken, self-imposed role of the US as international “peace-maker”.

K.Palbo: right on!

Dave: you ask what others think would be the right solution in dealing with Iran. It’s my opinion, that in the end, when a Likud government takes over in Israel, we will be the ones who will have no choice but to take things into our own hands as we did in ‘89 and bomb Iran. The US has run into more than it bargained for in Iraq and the gov. is facing opposition at home and the world over for having started a war it could not finish.

Eventually, Israel will have to deal with the harsh reality of a nuclear Iran and then, folks, things will not be pretty…for the ayatollahs.

Yes, Probligo, “nucular”. Obviously a piss-take. Psych! Notice how “nuclear” is spelled correctly at the end of my post?

Your reply only deteriorates from there.

Probligo,

I believe all humans have an equal right to form into nations and control their respective governments. Governments that are not democratic however, and Iran is one of those, do not have any inaliable right to power. To the extent that they behave themselves these totalitarian governments can be tolerated and we can wait for a slow process of change. When they embrace terrorism and seek to aquire weapons of mass destruction they cannot be tolerated.

However, since you seem convinced that Iran is more to be trusted then Israel (or the U.S. for that matter) I would question what your rational for this is? I would also question why, if the U.S. is such a pernicious threat to the ROW why New Zealand isn’t seeking to become a nuclear power? I presume that you don’t favor a nuclear powered New Zealand, but if as you insist nuclear weapons are the only way to deter the evil U.S. hegemons, how can you hold that position?

Greg,

I do not believe that Israel has the capability to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons through conventional air strikes on its own. Indeed, an air campaign alone would be uncertain of success even by the U.S. military. I would imagine that a nuclear strike by Israel would accomplish that limited goal, but I am fairly certain that Israel would not take that action absent clear and imminent danger of attack. I also expect that were it to do so, it would be disasterous for it.

That option is simply not realistic.

Dave: It would be a bad idea for Israel to attack Iran only if the U.S. doesn’t do so first. If the U.S. (and they likely will) ingores Iran’s nuclear build-up while medling in Iraq instead, Israel will only have one choice: to either nuke Iran, which would be the last option, or to an arial attack taking out the nuclear power plants and pushing back the Iranians’ plans some 3-4 years.

From what I have seen, without at least U.S. refueling, Israeli aircraft cannot reach the necessary targets in Iran and return. Even then, the targets are wideyly dispersed, small, often hardened and in many cases may not be fully identified (i.e. we are not sure where they are.) Unlike Osirak, there is no big nuclear plant that is the key.

It is unlikely therefore that Israel will be able to militarily inflict signifigant harm on the Iranian nuclear program, and trying to and failing would almost certainly be worse then not trying at all.

Dave, who needs aircraft to deliver a weapon when you have the capability to place satellites in orbit?

Google “Shavit” to find…

I don’t believe that accuracy would be of too much concern…

It is not a case of me “trusting” Iran, or Israel, or any other nation more than another. Personally, every nation with nuclear weapons poses a threat to the survival of mankind, irrespective of who they might be or think of their own self-importance.

One part of the solution could start with another phase of nuclear weapons reduction - and yeah, I am going to win the lottery tomorrow… all $6 million of it.

To continue the thought - no I do not trust the US any more than I trust Britain, or France, or China, or Russia.

In many respects it is the futility, the stupidity of the propaganda that winds me up. OBL is still on pilgramage in Central Asia somewhere. The hydra that was alQaeda now has at least three times as many heads as it had in 2001. It grows a few new ones every day too. Does the US feel any safer having destroyed Iraq? I certainly don’t. What really has been achieved other than the establishment of US puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq?

All that Iran needs to know is the following -

(Possession of nuclear weapons) + (Nuclear attack against anyone) = Catastrophe for Iran.

I am quite certain that message would have gotten through to both Pakistan and India very early on in their ownership of nuclear weapons. Very likely that message would have been delivered independently by US, Britain, Russia and China. Ghaddaffi and Algeria probably “got the message” as well resulting in them abandoning their weapons research…

Iran needs to know the same thing.

Afterthought -

Has anyone got a lead on the delivery systems and capability Iran might have for nuclear weapons?

Proligo,

I do not believe that those rockets have any system that is capable of delivering conventional weapons with the accuracy to take out Iranian nuclear sites. I have already expressed that I do not believe Israel is a willing to launch a preventive nuclear strike, and also that it would be a huge mistake if it did so. Certainly I will agree though that Israel could destroy Iran’s nuclear program with a preventive nuclear strike of its own, but I think that that would be an even worse consequence for Israel, not to mention everyone else, then letting Iran become a nuclear power.

As for your assertion that Al-Qaida has 3 times as many ‘heads’ as it did in 2001 and is growing more every day, do you have anything to back that up? In 2001 Al-Qaida had safe training camps that trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. Since 2001 the majority of Al-Qaida top leadership has been killed or captured and those that remain, such as Bin Laden, are deep enough in hiding that it seems unlikely they can exercise any sort of command and control or help with funding of any sort. Certainly their is some problem in that those people with that sort of sympathy are now operating in small individual groups which can be difficult to detect, but at the same time that sort of organization greatly limits the scale of attacks that can be maintained. We have of course not seen a terror attack in the U.S. since 9-11 and it has now been a couple of years since a major attack occurred in any western nation.

As for calling the democratically elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaders who at huge risk are attempting to develop their nations into stable democracy’s ‘puupet regimes’ that is a huge disservice to them. It implies that they are somehow less legitimate then the Taliban or Baath governments that proceed them, and also implies a rather disgusting view of these nations as less then human and only suitible for a totalitarian government. The democratically elected representives and leaders of these governments deserve our respect and admiration for courage beyond anything you or I have ever demonstrated, not scorn.

I agree with you that it would be suicide for Iran to launch a nuclear attack at anyone, and I agree that it is therefore fairly unlikely that they will do so, although if any country would embark on such a suicidal course it is one of the most likely to do so. Their rather peculiar ideology makes that an unlikely but very real possibility.

Of greater concern is what they will do with nuclear weapons as a shield to protect them from reprisals. They of course are already the number one supporter of terrorism in the world and have an ideology of exporting their Islamic revolution, backed by terror, to other Muslim nations in the region. One cannot imagine that upon gaining nuclear power they would reduce this, the opposite being far more likely. It would also of course free them up to be more oppressive against their own people, clapping down harder on the opposition and cementing thier power further. An expanded campaign of Iranian backed Shiite terror in Irar, Lebennon, Saudi Arabia and other places performed from behind the safety of a nuclear shield could quickly spiral into disaster in any number of ways.

As far as delivery systems, Iran has quite advanced rockets that can reach most of Europe and pretty much all of the middle east.

“As for your assertion that Al-Qaida has 3 times as many ‘heads’ as it did in 2001 and is growing more every day, do you have anything to back that up?”

Dave, do you really read anything from the news?

Try this

Try this

Try this

Try this

Try this

Try this

Try this

OK, so you say it is “just al Qaeda”. Yeah, like there is one Catholic Church…

Probligo, not one of those links seems to confirm your assertion that current numbers of Al-Qaida members is three times as many as it was in 2001. None of them give either a number for 2001 or a number for now.

Certainly it is true that Al-Qaida is recruiting in many areas, as it was in 2001. I would even agreethat given its high profile now, as compared to then, it may well be better able to recruit. But that doesn’t mean that we can just make up facts. How do you know Al-Qaida isn’t just 2-1 from what it was in 2001, or it isn’t 4-1. The simple answer is you don’t know any of that, or even if it is more numerous or not.