Iran warns U.S. over strike threat

[SoulSeekerz]

Can things get any worse in the Middle East.
I think if we stopped buying their oil for a year, they might sing a different tune.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/14/iran.ahmadinejad.ap/index.html

[gregulus]

They've said that for a while now, it's no surprise.

[Seafroggys]

We don't buy Iran's oil I don't think....their main buyers are China and Russia.

[SoulSeekerz]

I stand corrected. You are right.
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N03243800

[EinzingerIsGod]

Hopefully things just won't escalate for the rest of Bush's term and we will elect an administration with a bit more common sense in the diplomacy area and cooler heads will prevail.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Diplomacy is failing pretty hard right now :/

[Smokey D]

Things look grim, but neither side is going to risk antagonising each other too much before 2008, I think. At the same time, America is not going to stop buying oil (even if it doesn't use Iranian oil) in the next 10 years, so Mamouhd has some leverage..

[Dr Hooch]

Dunno if you've noticed but oil is scarce, not oil buyers..

Also:

The Iranian president said Monday Iran will retaliate if the U.S. strikes the country militarily.

How is that any different to what the US would say?

I don't like the Iranian regime at all but I don't see the huge deal neither side likes the other

[ringworm]

Diplomacy is failing pretty hard right now :/
:/
They have a planned meeting (The US and Iran) coming soon, we promised not to discuss nukes, just discussing Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4480908.stm

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

^^^

I read about that yesterday. Can't see it accomplishing much, tbh.

[ringworm]

optimism ftw :)


at least its something?

that comments sounds a lot like the news/government these days
hoping for failure before it even begins

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

that comments sounds a lot like the news/government these days
hoping for failure before it even begins
My expectations aren't high for diplomacy between two diplomatically disconnected nations.

But yeah, at least it's something. It's nice to see Bush approve talks with such a prominent member of the 'Axis of Evil'.

[lfantwister]

But yeah, at least it's something. It's nice to see Bush approve talks with such a prominent member of the 'Axis of Evil'.
And his principles, as they were, dissolve. "We don't negotiate with terrorists" and all

[Reaganista]

what terrorists

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

You know...

terrorists...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs

[Reaganista]

are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians terrorists too then

[VomitStainedCretin]

:rolleyes:Them Perzuns and Arrabs are all the same; they are all Muzlim turrurrists:rolleyes:

[Reaganista]

the rolleyes were helpful I was confused there at first

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I'm actually with Iran on this one. It's pretty ridiculous to say "ima fuk u up" to a regional superpower and expect them to roll over and die.


Whether or not Iran is evil is almost irrelevant to this latest round of rhetoric. The US has been threatening Iran directly for a few years now, and Iran has seen that the US is more than willing to pre-emptively invade a country for the sake of its own interests. Iran has done a lot less threatening than the US has. Ahmadinejad is a crackpot, but Bush is basically waiting outside a gun store with a bazooka shooting anybody who stops long enough to peek inside.

[Smokey D]

Regional super power is an oxymoron.

Iran has made some pretty threatening gestures which were misconstrued to be even more offensive, though. This impasse isn't all the US's fault.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Crackpots with nukes = all bad. :/

[Reaganista]

not really though

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well crackpots that could possibly give them to bigger crackpots isn't that swell.

[Akira]

Empty threat. Iran won't attack the US. The country isn't that stupid.

[Reaganista]

Well crackpots that could possibly give them to bigger crackpots isn't that swell.
nope still not worried

[WhoDidTheElf]

Edit: To Akira, The country won't, but who's to say the looneys they may give the nukes to won't?

And who's to say that another leader may come into power who would actually do such a thing?

Edit: To Reag, meh time will only tell.

[Reaganista]

using nukes completely defeats the purpose of having them to begin with

[lfantwister]

using nukes completely defeats the purpose of having them to begin with
unless you have different initial reasons?

[Reaganista]

nope not in this world you don't

[Smokey D]

Nukes had a military purpose that was achieved when they were used in Japan.

Also, crazies might want to use nukes to cause massive damage to a society, not as a deterrent.

[Akira]

nope not in this world you don't

You're forgetting that there are a lot of people in this world too crazy to care about the consequences of using a nuke.

I just don't think Ahmadinejad is one of them.

[Reaganista]

Nukes had a military purpose that was achieved when they were used in Japan.

as if the situation in 1945 has anything at all to do with today

You're forgetting that there are a lot of people in this world too crazy to care about the consequences of using a nuke.
actually what you're doing in imagining that there are a lot of people in this world too crazy to care about the consequences of using a nuke

[Smokey D]

as if the situation in 1945 has anything at all to do with today

The point being that historically nukes have had a military purpose which may become relevant at sometime in the future.


actually what you're doing in imagining that there are a lot of people in this world too crazy to care about the consequences of using a nuke

I don't imagine there's a lot of them, but I'd be willing to bet there's at least a few.

[Reaganista]

The point being that historically nukes have had a military purpose which may become relevant at sometime in the future.

maybe if somehow in the future there were 2 nukes in the world and only one country knew how to make them and they were about to enter into some period of hostility with the other powerful country in the world and they wanted to scare them by annihilating a few cities of some third party mutual enemy


I don't imagine there's a lot of them, but I'd be willing to bet there's at least a few.
good thing they don't have any then i guess

[Smokey D]

maybe if somehow in the future there were 2 nukes in the world and only one country knew how to make them and they were about to enter into some period of hostility with the other powerful country in the world and they wanted to scare them by annihilating a few cities of some third party mutual enemy

That you think 1945 is the only possible scenario where nukes could be militarily relevant displays a disturbing lack of imagination.


good thing they don't have any then i guess

Quite likely, though we can't account for all the weapons constructed in the Soviet Union.

There's also the problem about unstable regimes with nuclear weapons either lashing out in their death throes (the main risk with the DPK) or falling victim to a coup or otherwise losing power to a regime that will use them or supply people who will (a potential, albeit slim, possibility with Pakistan).

[Reaganista]

That you think 1945 is the only possible scenario where nukes could be militarily relevant displays a disturbing lack of imagination.

they're militarily relevant in that they prevent war between states with them

Quite likely, though we can't account for all the weapons constructed in the Soviet Union.

says some kgb guy
big deal even if he's right

There's also the problem about unstable regimes
oh you mean like the soviet union


with nuclear weapons either lashing out in their death throes (the main risk with the DPK) or falling victim to a coup or otherwise losing power to a regime that will use them or supply people who will (a potential, albeit slim, possibility with Pakistan).
yeah i'll say slim
i'm more worried about being killed in the rapture than by pakistani-built nukes

[Smokey D]

they're militarily relevant in that they prevent war between states with them

And their use might also become militarily relevant. The US has a significant arsenal of nukes for tactical, rather than strategic, deployment.

says some kgb guy
big deal even if he's right

It's not something we should dismiss so casually.

oh you mean like the soviet union

Not all unstable states will follow the same path as the USSR.


yeah i'll say slim
i'm more worried about being killed in the rapture than by pakistani-built nukes

There's a bigger concern that they'd be used against India.

[Reaganista]

And their use might also become militarily relevant. The US has a significant arsenal of nukes for tactical, rather than strategic, deployment.

yeah but they're all completely and utterly impractical
which the military has acknowledged by never using them for any tactical purposes

It's not something we should dismiss so casually.

using a nuke is always disadvantageous to not using it

Not all unstable states will follow the same path as the USSR.

k i guess if you say so


i'm more worried about being killed in the rapture than by pakistani-built nukes
There's a bigger concern that they'd be used against India.
pakistan and india have been in at least situations that would've meant conventional war since nukes have been introduced and both times they proved that they were capable of both thought and communication and wound up not destroying each other

[Smokey D]

yeah but they're all completely and utterly impractical
which the military has acknowledged by never using them for any tactical purposes


Because it has never faced concentrations of armour necessary to warrant a tactical nuke. They were developed explicitly to counter the possibility of the USSR's tanks (much larger than the US's) from moving across Europe.

using a nuke is always disadvantageous to not using it

Depends what your goal is.

pakistan and india have been in at least situations that would've meant conventional war since nukes have been introduced and both times they proved that they were capable of both thought and communication and wound up not destroying each other

Yes, but that's because they had reasonably sane people in command. If Pakistan goes all Islamic Revolution on us, then that's no longer a given.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Nukes would become a feasible weapon without drawbacks for any country able to develop a successful Star Wars style anti-missile scheme (horribly expensive and not necessarily current technology as it might be).

[Eliminator]

the iranians have a death star!

[VomitStainedCretin]

the iranians have a death star!Quick, send in the X-wings!

[Reaganista]

Because it has never faced concentrations of armour necessary to warrant a tactical nuke. They were developed explicitly to counter the possibility of the USSR's tanks (much larger than the US's) from moving across Europe.

and this is of course a purpose which they would be miserably deficient at

Depends what your goal is.

the goal of everyone with nukes it to maximize their own power position


Yes, but that's because they had reasonably sane people in command. If Pakistan goes all Islamic Revolution on us, then that's no longer a given.
yeah because no one with any sort of extremist ideology has ever had any nuclear weapons in the past

[lfantwister]

yeah because no one with any sort of extremist ideology has ever had any nuclear weapons in the past
substitute suicidal for extremist there

[Iscariot]

And his principles, as they were, dissolve. "We don't negotiate with terrorists" and all

because obviously everyone who lives in iran is a terrorist

all my iranian friends here in the us have bomb shops in their basements and carry ak-47's around town with them this is common knowledge

[lfantwister]

no way me too!

i'm not saying iranians are terrorists, just ahmadinejad. Even then it's iffy if he'd have the balls to actually doing something. he has the right mentality (on the right track to terrorism_

[Smokey D]

and this is of course a purpose which they would be miserably deficient at

Why?

the goal of everyone with nukes it to maximize their own power position

That's the goal of established states with nukes, not the goal of every possible person who might get nukes.

yeah because no one with any sort of extremist ideology has ever had any nuclear weapons in the past

Yeah, because all extremist ideologies will manifest the same way.

substitute suicidal for extremist there

The kicker being that there are suicidal ideologies and people kill themselves in their name almost everyday...

[Reaganista]

substitute suicidal for extremist there
this is entirely the product of your imagination, there is no reason to think the leadership of iran is suicidal and 28 years worth of reasons to think that they aren't


Why?
because it involves detonating nukes over friendly territory...

That's the goal of established states with nukes, not the goal of every possible person who might get nukes.

at this point you're down to one literally schizophrenic person stealing a nuke and means of delivery
i'm not worried

Yeah, because all extremist ideologies will manifest the same way.

actually all ideologies will manifest themselves in the same way in the context of international relations
in that they will seek to maximize their power

[griftadan]

if you're not a country i don't think it's too hard to imagine how using a nuke could increase your power

[lfantwister]

this is entirely the product of your imagination, there is no reason to think the leadership of iran is suicidal and 28 years worth of reasons to think that they aren't
at the very least ahmadinejad is diplomatically suicidal and has succeeded in isolating his country. at the most he's insane

[Smokey D]

because it involves detonating nukes over friendly territory...

Better that territory is denied to the enemy than occupied by the Reds. But tactical nukes aren't actually that destructive, and are only radioactive for a short time. They wouldn't render the ground zero permanently unlivable.

at this point you're down to one literally schizophrenic person stealing a nuke and means of delivery
i'm not worried

Well, delivery isn't that hard -- the Russians developed weapons that could be deployed inside a truck. And I don't know if I agree with the quip about a schizophrenic. It has frequently been demonstrated that people are willing to sacrifice themselves or others to achieve ideological goals.

actually all ideologies will manifest themselves in the same way in the context of international relations
in that they will seek to maximize their power

All ideologies attached to state interests, mebbe.

[Reaganista]

at the very least ahmadinejad is diplomatically suicidal and has succeeded in isolating his country. at the most he's insane
not really though

Better that territory is denied to the enemy than occupied by the Reds.
this statement demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how nuclear strategy actually breaks down tbh
it's never rational to start a nuclear war

But tactical nukes aren't actually that destructive, and are only radioactive for a short time. They wouldn't render the ground zero permanently unlivable.
yeah that doesn't really make any difference

Well, delivery isn't that hard -- the Russians developed weapons that could be deployed inside a truck. And I don't know if I agree with the quip about a schizophrenic. It has frequently been demonstrated that people are willing to sacrifice themselves or others to achieve ideological goals.
there's no comparison between ideologies that encourage individual sacrifices intended to improve things for the group and ideologies which intend to completely destroy themselves

All ideologies attached to state interests, mebbe.
yeah that's what happens when they get control of a state