Iran 2; EU pacifists 0

[Monk]

lwarmonger,

You haven't answered two of my specific questions,

1) In what way is pakistan's nuclear safeguards adequate enough to ensure that the weapons don't fall into the hands of the extremists considering the state of that country?

2) In what way is Pakistan a more responsible nuclear weapons state than Iran is expected to be?

[lwarmonger]

How did you find out that they had a nuclear facility this time around? What I suggested was a workable solution where the onus was on the Iranians to toe the line. This will also save a lot of bloodshed.

Through the news. However, according to you, we can't believe anything we hear, so neither one of us really knows that Iran exists, much less has a nuclear program.

I disagree. As long as China supports NK, it is status quo at best. And in the nuclear game NK is certainly ahead in all departments, and i see little reason why this would change, hence making NK more dangerous.

North Korea has a much smaller base upon which to rest it's nuclear program and military. Simple mathematics. 66 million people with oil money and a solid ideology for organizing the population will ultimately be more of a threat than 20 million people with next to no money and a personality cult that is unlikely to survive the family upon which it is based.

Israel can be reasoned with on the following grounds,
First there is one very solid deterrent which you pointed out,
That even in the case of Iranian first strike Israel retains enough 2nd strike capability to cause too much damage and in a war such as that the US isn't going to keep quite either. Therefore any Iranian adventure will result in its destruction. Which trust me, the Iranians most certainly don't want. Hence no nuclear first strike by Iran against Israel.

No, it won't. Iran wouldn't be destroyed, it would be hurt. That is the key phrase. And you keep saying "trust me." I'm not going to trust you, because you so often base your views on incomplete knowledge, which is further reinforced later in your reply when you discuss atomic weapons.

Second, The proximity of the other arab nations is a very solid deterrent to Iran whether you believe it or not. Even if the sunnis don't like them, the shias aren't going to take the risk of ending up killing a lot of Sunni muslims.

You really have no understanding of this area at all, do you? They aren't all one big happy family. Islam, arab nationalism, and the divisions between the Shia and Sunni branches make the situation far more complex then "if this happens, everyone will start doing _____."

I didn't say that they were in the government, If I am not wrong north lebanon is demographically dominated by shias. They were not card carrying "Destroy Israel" brigade until Israeli action in lebanon and that is that. The Israelis could even have cultivated them to be pro-Israel.

So they weren't pro-Israel, as you had said, just not actively anti-Israel. There is a big difference.

Then we have a deadlock. Since both of us cannot prove our statements.

Yeah, but you're willing to take the risk, which I find appalling.

This is really funny,
You actually believe India doesn't have enough nukes to put an end to pakistan..lol. You also believe that in case of a south asian nuclear war, the world will sit by and watch? I really don't know what to say to this so i am going to refrain.

You are right. This is really funny. You really have no clue about the nature of a nuclear conflict, it's likely repercussions, or the manner in which nation states have planned to wage it. Yet for some reason ( ) I have presumed to question your "expertise."

PAKISTAN IS A LARGELY DECENTRALIZED NATION. AS SUCH IT WOULD BE NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO DESTROY IT IN A NUCLEAR STRIKE FROM INDIA'S LIMITED INVENTORY. MAJOR CITIES, YES. A MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION, NO.

It is that simple.

Whats in the news isn't proof. We see lots of things in the news, things like women with four ***** and so on...should we believe all that. Some sort of tangible evidence needs to be presented before we can hold a regime guilty of actively sponsoring terrorism. Allegations don't cut it.

So tell me, where do you get your information? Do you see it all with your own eyes? My sources for this are the BBC and MSNBC. I could go and find more if I wished.

Yes there is.

Ok. You believe what you wish.

Fairly isnt enough to make big statements like you have been making.

But quite a bit more than you seem to have.

Zia-Ul-haq up until 1988 a government of "military/militant theocracy". I invite you to particularly read about his actions in the Northern Areas of kashmir and baloch province of pakistan.

Which derived it's power from the ....? Did I hear military? I think I did. And was comprised of the ...? The answer here isn't Mullahs. While Zia did Islamicize Pakistan, he did not institute a theocracy, and governed through marshal law.

Let me ask you a question, Would you like to be a family man living with his wife and kids in northern India with a neighbor like Pakistan? I hope I will get an honest answer.

I live in the United States, although I have visited Western Europe, Japan, and Korea. Since those relatively prosperous areas compare unfavorably with the United States, why would I wish to live anywhere else?

I can make the same kind of allegations.

So you don't think the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear capability is relevent? You don't think the manner in which that would upset the strategic balance vis a vis Israel is relevant?

You haven't answered my question, if Israel has the capacity to take out Iran at any point where it has intelligence of a threat, What is the issue then, why the worry?

Because nukes going off all over the Middle East would destroy the Japanese and European economies as their oil supply dried up. That would, in turn, severely damage the American economy. That's the worry.

And I have given atleast two deterrents for Iran launching a nuclear strike against Israel. And against the US, it isn't even possible for Iran to launch a nuclear strike. You should be more worried about NK.

I am worried about NK, however that does not mean I think the US should wait until Iran develops atomic weaponry before we decide to deal with them. And as for deterrants, your knowledge regarding nuclear warfighting seems to be rather limited, and your knowledge of Iranian power politics even more so (honestly, expressing faith in the Iranian president, when he so very clearly has no power... simply amazing).

So what exactly is the point here?

The point is that your "anti-Shia Sunni alliance" in the wake of the destruction of Israel is the worst kind of wishful thinking.

Back up there, are you saying Al-Qaeda is state sponsored terrorism, which state?
If not, then Al-Qaeda seems to be doing fine without state aid and Budget allocations.

Afghanistan. Then we cut out their base of support. How many losses have they suffered recently? A lot.

If the Iranian isolation is ended, they will stop being a threat. I feel the requirement is, one step forward by the US in a direct contact with the Iranian government and the whole issue can be diffused. The more the iranians are pushed to the wall, the more wild and stupid things they are going to end up saying.

Ah, so once again blame is placed squarely on the United States. You must live in a very black and white world. Good= the rest of the world. Bad= evil, genocidal United States bent on world domination. Sorry to tell you this, but things are rarely that simple.

[Monk]

Through the news. However, according to you, we can't believe anything we hear, so neither one of us really knows that Iran exists, much less has a nuclear program.

When I said you, I meant the US, i should have been more clear. The US didn't find out through the news, did they?

North Korea has a much smaller base upon which to rest it's nuclear program and military. Simple mathematics. 66 million people with oil money and a solid ideology for organizing the population will ultimately be more of a threat than 20 million people with next to no money and a personality cult that is unlikely to survive the family upon which it is based.

But they already have the Nuclear weapons, that is the point here and they as of this moment are quite unstable.

You really have no understanding of this area at all, do you? They aren't all one big happy family. Islam, arab nationalism, and the divisions between the Shia and Sunni branches make the situation far more complex then "if this happens, everyone will start doing _____."

I live here among them day after day, what the hell are you talking about? Secondly, I never said that the Shia-Sunni etc are all one big happy family. I said the chances of the Sunnis coming together are very high.

Yeah, but you're willing to take the risk, which I find appalling.

I have my style of thinking you have yours. I could label you propensity to go to war "Sick".

You are right. This is really funny. You really have no clue about the nature of a nuclear conflict, it's likely repercussions, or the manner in which nation states have planned to wage it. Yet for some reason ( ) I have presumed to question your "expertise."

PAKISTAN IS A LARGELY DECENTRALIZED NATION. AS SUCH IT WOULD BE NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO DESTROY IT IN A NUCLEAR STRIKE FROM INDIA'S LIMITED INVENTORY. MAJOR CITIES, YES. A MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION, NO.
It is that simple.

I have never claimed to be an expert on nuclear warfare anywhere on this thread. I am only talking about diplomacy before war. Secondly, I am putting forth the concept of the deterrent as i see things and understand it, I am not making "expert" statements here. If you want to go to war, all the best.

You have a lot more faith in Pakistan and a lot lower esteem of India than one should. All the best again on the horse you are backing.

So tell me, where do you get your information? Do you see it all with your own eyes? My sources for this are the BBC and MSNBC. I could go and find more if I wished.

Yes when they back it up with evidence. Not when they say "so and so alleges...", then it could just be a rumour.

But quite a bit more than you seem to have.

I would normally dispute this but there are certain types of people with whom I don't. Not when they are this full of themselves.

Which derived it's power from the ....? Did I hear military? I think I did. And was comprised of the ...? The answer here isn't Mullahs. While Zia did Islamicize Pakistan, he did not institute a theocracy, and governed through marshal law.

Your opinion about pakistan particularly your spin on pakistani politics is quite astounding to the point of foolishness. The theocracy was indirectly instituted under martial law. if you didn't understand this, what can I say.

I live in the United States, although I have visited Western Europe, Japan, and Korea. Since those relatively prosperous areas compare unfavorably with the United States, why would I wish to live anywhere else?

My question was from the threat perspective, since you didn't understand it, its pointless.

So you don't think the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear capability is relevent? You don't think the manner in which that would upset the strategic balance vis a vis Israel is relevant?

Fo the lack of better argument this ....

Because nukes going off all over the Middle East would destroy the Japanese and European economies as their oil supply dried up. That would, in turn, severely damage the American economy. That's the worry.

Only if it happens, we are arguing precisely that, likelihood of this event. Which you i presume are convinced will.

I am worried about NK, however that does not mean I think the US should wait until Iran develops atomic weaponry before we decide to deal with them. And as for deterrants, your knowledge regarding nuclear warfighting seems to be rather limited, and your knowledge of Iranian power politics even more so (honestly, expressing faith in the Iranian president, when he so very clearly has no power... simply amazing).

I disagree.

The point is that your "anti-Shia Sunni alliance" in the wake of the destruction of Israel is the worst kind of wishful thinking.

Like i said before it depends on perspective.

Ah, so once again blame is placed squarely on the United States. You must live in a very black and white world. Good= the rest of the world. Bad= evil, genocidal United States bent on world domination. Sorry to tell you this, but things are rarely that simple.

If you presume this, how can we possibly debate. My statement was If the US made direct contact with Iran the situation could be contained. How does that equate to what you said?
And your repeated name calling and attempt to brand me Anti-US is irritating and insulting. Do you have nothing better to say? What do you know about me to make this assumption. Absolutely nothing! So any debate with anyone about the US and you brand them anti-US? So if there is a debate in the US about the US policies, everyone against state policy is Anti-US?