Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fairthought
IT is hard for the US to argue Iran needs to be punished for violating the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty when US allies -Israel, Pakistan, and India- have all violated the same treaty and got little or no punishment at all.
|
India and Pakistan were both punished, and you're not arguing with the "US" in this thread.
Quote:
|
It is even harder for the US to argue Iran needs to be punished for violating a treaty when the US unilaterally dumped the ABM treaty,
|
You're comparing apples and oranges, and again I'm arguing that the US can't be secure with nuclear weapons in the hands of the Mullahs. You’re not arguing with the fictional "US" construct you created.
Quote:
|
calling it a relic of the cold war.
|
You've given no argument to show otherwise.
Quote:
|
The Russians are still quite mad about that.
|
And we're quite mad about some of the things Russia has done. What's you point?
Quote:
|
And the Russians may get revenge in the matter of Iran.
|
Whatever they want.
Quote:
|
Is not the NNPT a relic of the cold war? A treaty that calls on all non-nuclear nations to grant the cold war nuclear powers exclusive right to nukes? It is a treaty that no longer reflects the reality of the word today. Not only is the cold war over, but there are already numerous violations.
|
I'm not arguing about treaties. The US should not allow it's enemies the means to destroy it.
Quote:
|
The US will certainly initiate the need for war against Iran, arguing its case before the Europeans.
|
We will try to convince them, but in the end, we will do what we think is best.
Quote:
|
The Europeans, particularly France and Germany, will not be so obstinate the second time around. France in particular suffered a lot from US diplomatic attacks, and they have learned to change their tune. They will be eager to be hard on Iran to show how valuable French support can be.
|
What evidence do you have to support any of that?
Quote:
|
The Russians are eager for entry into the WTO and European investment. In exchange for economic breakthroughs the Russians could very well turn their backs on Iran.
|
I'm sure there was a bribe waiting for them had they chosen to support us on Iraq and they didn't take it. I'm not expecting them to take it next time.
Quote:
|
They have already delayed the start of the Bushehr reactor several times and now are suspending the sales of military arms -tying them to European anti-nuclear initiatives.
|
Maybe they don't want a war?
Why would we go to the UN? It just proved a waste of time in the past.
Quote:
|
is to come from anywhere it would be China. China has a $100 billion petroleum investment deal in Iran, worth potentially $200 billion in total trade. These aren't the types of investments that China is willing to lose. Iran also has a gas pipeline in the works with India, in addition to a $20 billion Indian investment in Iranian gas. But a UN veto will be irrelevant to the US anyway.
|
Yep.
Quote:
|
The US has actually identified over 900 potential nuclear targets in Iran.
|
Which proves what? We probably have 20000 nuclear targets in Russia.
Quote:
|
Iran already has enough nuclear material to make several 'dirty bombs'.
|
"Dirty bombs" are a lot of myth. They aren't significantly more devastating then a conventional attack. They are a panic weapon not a serious threat.
Quote:
|
An air strike needs to destroy all possibility of Iran retaining nuclear material inorder to prevent the threat of Iran passing them to terrorists. If Iran already has some nuclear warheads the danger of a surgical strike is much worse.
|
Iran doesn't even have a nuclear device much less a warhead.
Quote:
|
If you only hit 99% of the facilities -using nuclear bunkerbusting bombs- and that last one percent held a nuclear bomb, the retaliation will ceratinly be nuclear and it will almost certainly be directed at either the US or Israel (whoever conducted the air strike).
|
You're over estimating their current ability.
Quote:
|
1. The islamic world will see this a proof that America is on a crusade to kill muslims
|
And that is a change how?
Quote:
|
and reduce any rising muslim country into rubble.
|
And this is true IYO?
Quote:
|
This will yield many thousands of terrorist cells to form spntaneously and without any recruitment effort by al-qaida. The number of terrorist incidents will skyrocket. The US will be losing the war on terror.
|
Well, there's always the “sniper option.”
Quote:
|
The panic of oil investors, recognizing 35% of the worlds oil is now in and around a war zone will cause the price of oil to skyrocket. $100 per barrel will be a conservative estimate. The price could reach as high as $150 per barrel. Any sudden rise in energy will be a shock to oil importing economic systems. The most vulnerable ecnomoy wil be the US. Attacks on oil pipelines and other facilities will in increase in Iraq and spread to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Algeria, Libya, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc. -wherever there is a muslim country with oil. Bombs and energy don't mix. Even the hint of war in the persian gulf would cause a speculation panic. Global economic recession.
|
You have to connect a lot of dots to get there including the one that proves that the US will use such weapons.
Quote:
|
The use of nukes for tactical purposes will encourage other nuclear powers to lower their inhibitions. China will be more likely to incorporate nukes into any invasion plan for Taiwan.
|
And they will get the same as they would today. Are under the impression that China won't use nukes because there is no precedent?
Quote:
|
Russia, France, Israel, Pakistan, India will be more inclined to use nukes in their various conflicts around the world.
|
Such as?
Quote:
|
The use of tactical nukes along the Indo-pakistan border will inevitably lead to the application of stronger nukes. Nuclear war be far more likely, and every single country in the world will develop a nuclear program for their own safety.
|
A prophesier of doom are we? This will happen? Do you have any doubt?
Quote:
|
Iran has already infiltrated Iraq with numerous scouts and snipers
|
Prove that.
Quote:
|
and organized shiite militias and established an underground network complete with weapon caches.
|
""
Quote:
|
The only reason the US hasn't suffered 500 dead per month in Iraq is because Iran has kept this powderkeg in check.
|
I'm beginning to question your sanity.
Quote:
|
It is being used as a deterrent against US aggression on Iran.
|
Yeah except there's no evidence so far that it's true.
Quote:
|
The sunni triangle insurgency will be nothing in comparison to what Iran will unleash.
|
A conclusion based on your imagination.
Quote:
|
World opinion of the US will plummet.
|
A) What's new
B) We don't care that much
Quote:
|
The US will no longer be seen as a stabilizing force in the world,
|
Since when has that been true?
Quote:
|
but a loose canon out of control and throwing havoc across the world.
|
You don't believe that's true now? I beat you do.
Quote:
|
The great powers -Europeans, Russia, India, China, Brazil, OPEC- will cement cooperation to check the world's lone superpower,
|
"Great powers?" I don't see any "great powers" on that list. Besides all those countries have a lot to lose by doing whatever you think they are going to do. Hasn’t stopped them in the past thou I suppose.
Quote:
|
So if the reason for going to war with Iran was punish them for violating the NNPT, the action will be a miserable failure due to consequence number three above (everyone will develop nukes).
|
You're assuming we will use a nuke. You're wrong.
Quote:
|
If the reason for going to war with Iran is Iran's involvement with insurgents in Iraq against US troops, then the action will be a failure due to consequence number four above.
|
Ahh yes the imaginary Iranian army in Iraq.
Quote:
|
If the reason for going to war with Iran is because Iran is a purported sponsor of terrorism, then the action will be a tremedous failure due to consequence number one above.
|
You're assuming numerous things that aren't true as pointed out above.
Quote:
|
If the reason for going to war with Iran is to insure US and Israeli exclusive nuclear dominance in the middle east,
|
Who's making that argument?
Quote:
|
The Israeli peace process has already begun,
|
If by "process" you mean the Israelis doing what they feel will offer them the most security, then I agree.
Quote:
|
It is simply in Israel's own interests to pursue the peace process.
|
It's in the Israelis interest to take what ever action is necessary to protect themselves from a deranged and death obsessed Palestinian society.
Quote:
|
Destroying Iran's nulcear facilities will not give you security because you already have security. Iran doesn't want a nuclear war, she would be decimated.
|
If you and several thousand followers decided to attack the US. You would be destroyed. Yet AQ did that exact thing. Why should I think Iran won't make the same choice? Why would America allow them that choice?
Quote:
|
America and Israel already have strong deterrents in place.
|
Which is irrelevant when you're not talking about a logical actor.
Quote:
|
Iran doesn't want to give nukes to terrorist because that puts themselves at risk.
|
So does trying to develop nuclear weapons, but it hasn't stopped them.
Quote:
|
No country in the world would fail to safe guard their own nukes from falling into the hands of others.
|
We've seen that's false in Russia.
Quote:
|
The benefits of a war on Iran are all imaginary.
|
Kind of like you're consequences to such a war.
Quote:
|
But to those possessed by paranoia and propaganda the imaginary is all too real.
|
So every one that doesn't agree with you is paranoid? You can shove that kind of "logic" up your ass.