The roads leading to disaster

[Rabid]

The roads leading to disaster

THIS Reflection could be written today, tomorrow or any other day without any risk of being mistaken. Our species is confronting new problems. When I stated 20 years ago at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, that a species was in danger of extinction, I had fewer reasons than today to warn of a danger, one which could perhaps be perceived as 100 years distant. At that time, a few leaders of the most powerful countries were managing the world. They applauded my words out of mere courtesy and placidly continued digging our species’ grave.

It appeared that commonsense and order reigned on our planet. For some time, economic development supported by technology and science seemed to be the Alpha and Omega of human society.

Today, everything is much clearer. Profound truths have gradually come to light. Close to 200 states, supposedly independent, constitute, in theory, the political organization responsible for governing the destiny of the world.

Approximately 25,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of allied or antagonistic forces prepared to defend the changing order - out if self-interest or necessity - are virtually reducing to zero the rights of billions of people.

I will not disingenuously assign responsibility to Russia or China for the development of this type of weapons, in the wake of the monstrous slaughter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ordered by Truman after the death of Roosevelt.

Neither will I fall into the error of denying the holocaust, which signified the death of millions of children and adults, men and women, principally Jews, Romanies, Russians or people of other nationalities who were the victims of Nazism. For that reason the infamous policy of those denying the Palestinian people their right to exist is repugnant.

Does anyone think that the United States will be capable of acting with the independence that could preserve it from the inevitable disaster awaiting it?

Within a few weeks, the $40 million which President Obama committed himself to raise for his election campaign will only serve to demonstrate that his country’s currency is very devalued, and that the United States, with its unprecedented and growing public debt, approaching 20 trillion dollars, is living off the money it issues and not off what it produces. The rest of the world is paying for what they are squandering.

Neither does anybody believe that the Democratic candidate will be better or worse than his Republican opponents: whether they are called Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. Light years separate the three from figures as outstanding as Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King. It is really extraordinary to observe a nation so powerful technologically and a government so bereft of both ideas and moral values.

Iran does not possess nuclear weapons. It is accused of producing enriched uranium, which serves as fuel for generating energy or as a component for medical use. Like it or not, its possession or production is not equivalent to the production of nuclear weapons. Dozens of countries use enriched uranium as an energy source, but it cannot be used in the manufacture of a nuclear weapon without a prior, complex purification process.

However Israel, which with the help and cooperation of the United States manufactured nuclear weapons without informing or making itself accountable to anyone, today has hundreds of these weapons, without acknowledging possession of them. In order to prevent research development in neighboring Arab countries, it attacked and destroyed the reactors of Syria and Iran. It has also declared its intention to attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear fuel production facilities.

International politics have been revolving around this crucial issue in this complex and dangerous region of the world, where a major portion of the fuel which moves the world economy is produced.

The selective elimination of Iran’s most eminent scientists on the part of Israel and its NATO allies has become a practice which foments hatred and sentiments of revenge.

The Israeli government has openly declared its intention to attack the enriched uranium production plant in Iran, and the government of the United States has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in manufacturing a bomb for that purpose.

On March 16, 2012, Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham published an article revealing that "A top U.S. Air Force general has described the biggest conventional warhead – the 30,000-pound bunkerbuster bomb – as ‘great’ for a military strike on Iran.

"Such glib comment about a massive killing device comes in the same week that U.S. President Barack Obama appeared to caution against ‘loose talk’ about war in the Persian Gulf.

"…’The massive ordnance penetrator [MOP] is a great weapon,’ said Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle, the U.S. Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, who added that the bomb would likely be used in any attack on Iran ordered by Washington.

"The MOP also referred to as The Mother of All Bombs is designed to drill through 200 feet of reinforced concrete before detonating its massive warhead. It is believed to be the biggest conventional, non-nuclear, weapon in the American arsenal.

"The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran’s infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive capacity.

The MOP is described as "a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb—longer than 11 persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder or more than 20 feet base to nose—"

I beg readers to forgive me for this tortuous military jargon.

As can be noted, such calculations are based on the assumption that the Iranian combatants, which include millions of men and women known for their religious commitment and traditions of struggle, will surrender without firing a shot.

Recently, over a period of just three weeks, Iranians have seen how United States soldiers occupying Afghanistan have urinated on the bodies of murdered Afghans, burned copies of the Koran and killed more than 15 defenseless citizens.

Imagine United States forces dropping monstrous bombs, capable of penetrating 60 meters of cement, on industrial facilities. Never before has such an adventure been conceived.

Not another word is needed to comprehend the seriousness of such a policy. Following this path, our species will be led inexorably toward disaster. If we do not learn to comprehend, we will never learn to survive.

As far as I am concerned, I do not harbor the slightest doubt that the United States is about to commit, and lead the world toward, the greatest error in its history.


Fidel Castro Ruz
March 21, 2012
7:35 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb bomb Iran~~

[Winston Blake]

(Naturally the following is directed at the article and not Rabid).

Maybe it's due to translation, but this reads like an entry from the blog of an 18-year-old who just discovered politics and Peak Oil. It would not be out of place sitting above an entry on the important of vegetarianism and mandalas to world peace, and sitting below an entry about how 9/11 was totally faked.

(Well, except for the part about "When I stated 20 years ago at the United Nations Conference [etc]". But anyway.)

It's a stream of purple prose and unsupported assertions that the author assumed would fill the reader with the same sense of grandiose awe and amazement he felt when he was typing it, stopping occasionally to gaze into the air and cup its enormous balls, searching for the choice words that would echo throughout eternity.

OK, OK, the world is socioeconomopoliticologically fucked-up and it's all the fault of the dastardly 'Merikans, we get it. The world's in a bad way. Anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand can see that.

The MOP is described as "a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb—longer than 11 persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder or more than 20 feet base to nose

[...]

Imagine United States forces dropping monstrous bombs, capable of penetrating 60 meters of cement, on industrial facilities. Never before has such an adventure been conceived.

The old ones were 5.2m long and 7.6m long. This incredible new bomb, this monstrous symbol of bellicosity, this game-changing behemoth of political brinkmanship, tops out at a whopping... 6.2m long. Longer than 11 persons! Standing shoulder-to-shoulder! Who could think of using such a terrible weapon?

Now, it's super-fat and six times the weight, but super-bombs with a similar deep-penetration goal date back to around the end of WWII. E.g. Grand Slam, Tallboy, and the T-12. Such adventures have, in fact, been conceived. The T-12 was 43,000 lb whereas the MOP is only 30,000 lb.

This is like the hype surrounding the MOAB, which was spoken of by hand-wringers as a mushroom-cloud-producing hell-weapon as powerful as a small nuclear bomb. It turns out that was true - for certain laughably miniscule values of 'small'.

Not another word is needed to comprehend the seriousness of such a policy. Following this path, our species will be led inexorably toward disaster. If we do not learn to comprehend, we will never learn to survive.

As far as I am concerned, I do not harbor the slightest doubt that the United States is about to commit, and lead the world toward, the greatest error in its history.

Oh how I love politico-talk, full of grandiose announcements, full of flowery emotive language, fit for the pages of the history, fit to be accompanied by stately portraits of wrinkled people, next to quotes vaguely conveying the idea that something must be done.

He could have just written:

The world is super-fucked-up everyone.

America is kind of an asshole, am I right?

Bombing Iran would cause a lot of problems and kill a lot of people. Who knew?

Kthxbye
Your BFF Castro.

If we do not learn to comprehend, we will never learn to understand.
If we do not understand learning, we will never learn comprehension.
If we do not understand ourselves, we will never comprehend our destiny.

Winston Blake Ruz
March 21, 2012
7:35 p.m.

[Sea Skimmer]

So this is actually supposed to be from THE dictator Castro I take it? I'd assume the statement Israel attacked Irans nuclear reactors is a mistranslation of Iraq or an honest error by the poor dictator.

[weemadando]

So this is actually supposed to be from THE dictator Castro I take it? I'd assume the statement Israel attacked Irans nuclear reactors is a mistranslation of Iraq or an honest error by the poor dictator.

Could be a poorly written or translated reference to the STUXnet attacks.

[Rabid]

Text in the original Español for those interested. Didn't read it myself.

[Simon_Jester]

I wonder, for the writer's anti-nuclear activism, how interested he is in sub-Saharan Africa? That is the species in its native range; if we can't survive there where can we survive? and yet Africa is stricken by horrible plagues, and in Rwanda and the Congo they've killed something like ten times the Hiroshima-Nagasaki death toll using weapons that can be made by village blacksmiths or at most small-town machinists.

Intellectually, what I have issue with is that the author's anti-militarism is simply a mirror image of militarism: they fixate on the biggest engines of war in the world (like bunker-busting bombs and nuclear missiles) and assume that those must be the most important thing in the world. When a militarist does it it leads to fetishization of the armed forces. When a pacifist does it, it makes them think the biggest weapons are the biggest threat to the survival of the species, ignoring things that are far more likely to kill us all instead of 'just' killing a lot of people in one corner of the Earth.

Now, in 1970 this same person would have had good reason to think we were more likely to kill ourselves in nuclear war than by other means. That was where the evidence pointed as far as the popular consensus was concerned. But today, nuclear war is vastly less likely than it was 25 years ago, conventional war is no more likely to wipe out the species than it ever was, and yet environmental issues have become far more significant and far better-understood.

Why is he lecturing us on disarmament instead of lecturing us on global warming?

[Rabid]

I guess (I have no certitude) that the author is in the mindset, one that some other may share, that we are entering a Second Cold War [this one multi-polar instead of being bi-polar like the First] ; and that the US is going to launch itself into another "Bay of the Pigs" / [repeat of the general Cuban fiasco] over Iran's nuclear program.

In short that the US act stupid and hasn't really learned anything from the first time around.

[Rabid]

BTW: He did lecture us on global warming, in a column in January. He has a very long history of writing on a variety of issues, including humanitarianism and environmentalism.

Here.

Just allow me to say that Cuba could use better web-designers (the link to 2011's articles is 404).

[Akhlut]

I wonder, for the writer's anti-nuclear activism, how interested he is in sub-Saharan Africa? That is the species in its native range; if we can't survive there where can we survive? and yet Africa is stricken by horrible plagues, and in Rwanda and the Congo they've killed something like ten times the Hiroshima-Nagasaki death toll using weapons that can be made by village blacksmiths or at most small-town machinists.

He sent Che Guevara to the Congo to try and oust colonial governments. He's also sent Cuban doctors out to sub-Saharan Africa all the time to provide basic medical care to as many people as possible. So, yes, he does care about sub-Saharan Africa and has since the 1960s.

Intellectually, what I have issue with is that the author's anti-militarism is simply a mirror image of militarism: they fixate on the biggest engines of war in the world (like bunker-busting bombs and nuclear missiles) and assume that those must be the most important thing in the world. When a militarist does it it leads to fetishization of the armed forces. When a pacifist does it, it makes them think the biggest weapons are the biggest threat to the survival of the species, ignoring things that are far more likely to kill us all instead of 'just' killing a lot of people in one corner of the Earth.

Castro is not quite a regular pacifist, methinks. Most pacifists I can think of didn't violently overthrow an authoritarian dictatorship and ally themselves with the Soviet Union for 35 years.

Plus, it seems he's saying that a war in Iran has the potential to turn nuclear in some manner.

Also, for the leader of the nation that hosted the Cuban Missile Crisis, his thoughts might be slightly colored by the Cold War.

Now, in 1970 this same person would have had good reason to think we were more likely to kill ourselves in nuclear war than by other means. That was where the evidence pointed as far as the popular consensus was concerned. But today, nuclear war is vastly less likely than it was 25 years ago, conventional war is no more likely to wipe out the species than it ever was, and yet environmental issues have become far more significant and far better-understood.

Why is he lecturing us on disarmament instead of lecturing us on global warming?

He's doing both.

[Ziggy Stardust]

This isn't really news. Due to his various infirmities and old age, Fidel's active role in Cuban politics has been little more than writing various propagandist op-ed diatribes in the Granma for YEARS now.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I should remember that.... go through every thread in N&P and say "this isn't really news, (Glenn Greenwald|Paul Krugman|what have you) has been writing for YEARS now".

Nice high-horse you have going on, here.

Or perhaps you can give some reason why the senile ramblings of a largely irrelevant (at least practically, though not symbolically) 85 year old man are on par with two people who are active/respected/relevant/what have you in their fields, and are actually in any way involved with the news? Are you really this fucking stupid?

[Bakustra]

That is exactly the argumentum ad hominem in its pure form- disregarding the content to shoot the messenger. The question of whether Fidel Castro is politically relevant in the government of Cuba, or beset with Alzheimer's or not, has little or nothing to do with the actual content of what he writes and whether it is relevant or cogent. Indeed, the fact that you move to dismiss it serves as a key tell that you disagree with it but have no strong arguments against the content, instead going for the fallacious-but-easier character argument.

[Nephtys]

It appeared that commonsense and order reigned on our planet. For some time, economic development supported by technology and science seemed to be the Alpha and Omega of human society.

Today, everything is much clearer. Profound truths have gradually come to light. Close to 200 states, supposedly independent, constitute, in theory, the political organization responsible for governing the destiny of the world.

Approximately 25,000 nuclear weapons in the hands of allied or antagonistic forces prepared to defend the changing order - out if self-interest or necessity - are virtually reducing to zero the rights of billions of people.

This literally does sound like a freshman polysci major who doesn't know jack shit. 200 states? Political organization? Um... well. They're not an organization. Luxembourg is about as responsible for governing the destiny of the world as Detroit, soo... okay...

I never knew nuclear bombs had the ability to 'reduce the rights of people to zero'. Or that this was any sort of new development?

Neither does anybody believe that the Democratic candidate will be better or worse than his Republican opponents: whether they are called Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. Light years separate the three from figures as outstanding as Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King. It is really extraordinary to observe a nation so powerful technologically and a government so bereft of both ideas and moral values.

What is this? Your college essay? Abraham Lincoln took his own country to war and authorized the burning of American cities to end it. Martin Luther King wasn't a government figure, and 'moral values' wise, was personally unpleasant.

Iran does not possess nuclear weapons. It is accused of producing enriched uranium, which serves as fuel for generating energy or as a component for medical use. Like it or not, its possession or production is not equivalent to the production of nuclear weapons. Dozens of countries use enriched uranium as an energy source, but it cannot be used in the manufacture of a nuclear weapon without a prior, complex purification process.

Iran has facilities to be enriching uranium. In fact, enriching uranium IS the 'prior, complex purification process'. This person clearly doesn't know the massive gulf between reactor-grade Uranium and weapons-grade Uranium. Not to mention how effectively, possession of weapons-grade Uranium is the ability to have nuclear weapons for any fairly major nation. Even the North Koreans could do it.

"The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran’s infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive capacity.

Yeah, well. The Pentagon also 'plans' for foreign powers invading America, India nuking Pakistan, and any number of scripts from '24'. Also 'monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs' is a hilarious term for 'conventional bomb'.

On March 16, 2012, Michel Chossudovsky and Finian Cunningham published an article revealing that "A top U.S. Air Force general has described the biggest conventional warhead – the 30,000-pound bunkerbuster bomb – as ‘great’ for a military strike on Iran.

The use of 'Great' surely means that the weapon is superb and fantastic and cool, not that it would be suitable and able to attack it's very specialized target... right?

As can be noted, such calculations are based on the assumption that the Iranian combatants, which include millions of men and women known for their religious commitment and traditions of struggle, will surrender without firing a shot.

...em. If the US is prepared to 'tactically nuke' Iran as claimed before in this article... I guess technically true. They'll be incinerated without firing a shot.

Imagine United States forces dropping monstrous bombs, capable of penetrating 60 meters of cement, on industrial facilities. Never before has such an adventure been conceived.

2003 Iraq? And it's rather odd to call very specific uranium enrichment plants 'Industrial Facilities'.

[Simon_Jester]

[proceeds to school Simon_Jester]

Ugh, you're right, I really messed this one up- blanking on the author being Castro and picking up a stupid secondhand impression. My only defense is that I'd just woken up; you're totally right.

Dammit.

This literally does sound like a freshman polysci major who doesn't know jack shit. 200 states? Political organization? Um... well. They're not an organization. Luxembourg is about as responsible for governing the destiny of the world as Detroit, soo... okay...

The UN, silly. Which is in many ways the 'face' of world government, insofar as it exists.

I never knew nuclear bombs had the ability to 'reduce the rights of people to zero'. Or that this was any sort of new development?

Well, to be fair, from Fidel Castro's perspective, the whole Cold War nuclear standoff thing has massively screwed over Cuba in some ways, and greatly warped their history in other ways. So saying that it undermines the sovereignty of minor nations isn't totally without basis: nuclear weapons are great for preserving the sovereignty and immunity to conquest of the countries that have them. But they're not so good from the point of view of minor countries, for whom nuclear weapons make any hope of defeating invasion and avoiding occupation by a nuclear power totally out of the question, and who know that if they do seek nuclear weapons to secure their own sovereignty and protect themselves from conquest, they become targets for the global order's opposition to nuclear weapons proliferation.

I'm deeply ambiguous about nuclear proliferation myself, but I can understand how the whole thing looks to people who don't have The Bomb and have to worry constantly about someone who does.

[Akhlut]

I never knew nuclear bombs had the ability to 'reduce the rights of people to zero'. Or that this was any sort of new development?

Reducing people to nuclear vapor does reduce their human rights rather drastically. :v

Abraham Lincoln took his own country to war and authorized the burning of American cities to end it.

If by "took his own country to war" you mean "reacted against a treasonous invasion orchestrated by a group of power hungry slavocrats", sure.

Martin Luther King wasn't a government figure, and 'moral values' wise, was personally unpleasant.

Aside from serial adultery and plagiarism on a paper about theology, I'm not sure how much he was morally flawed. However, he was the definitive leader of the US civil rights movement, regardless, and would certainly have the internal strength to do things like not egregiously violate US civil rights at every turn, unlike the current top contenders for the election.

This person clearly doesn't know the massive gulf between reactor-grade Uranium and weapons-grade Uranium. Not to mention how effectively, possession of weapons-grade Uranium is the ability to have nuclear weapons for any fairly major nation. Even the North Koreans could do it.

And, yet, there isn't the sort of willingness to bomb North Korea (or Israel, lol) as there is for Iran.

Yeah, well. The Pentagon also 'plans' for foreign powers invading America, India nuking Pakistan, and any number of scripts from '24'. Also 'monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs' is a hilarious term for 'conventional bomb'.

Yeah, but no president/presidential candidate seriously is proposing that we preemptively invade Canada; there is serious discussion about actually using military force against Iran.

[HMS Conqueror]

Is the proposed disaster that Iran might get a bomb, or that US might stop Iran getting a bomb?

Or perhaps some totally other thing lost amid the rambling. Leaving political nonsense aside for a second, dropping large concrete-penetrating bombs on industrial facilities has been not only conceived but executed, with rather positive results:

[Nephtys]

I never knew nuclear bombs had the ability to 'reduce the rights of people to zero'. Or that this was any sort of new development?

Reducing people to nuclear vapor does reduce their human rights rather drastically. :v

No moreso than any other form of violence or warfare.

Abraham Lincoln took his own country to war and authorized the burning of American cities to end it.

If by "took his own country to war" you mean "reacted against a treasonous invasion orchestrated by a group of power hungry slavocrats", sure.

Yes, his opposition was distinctly more... 'bad', but he still authorized the destruction of civilian centers to do it.

Martin Luther King wasn't a government figure, and 'moral values' wise, was personally unpleasant.

Aside from serial adultery and plagiarism on a paper about theology, I'm not sure how much he was morally flawed. However, he was the definitive leader of the US civil rights movement, regardless, and would certainly have the internal strength to do things like not egregiously violate US civil rights at every turn, unlike the current top contenders for the election.

He was still a civilian opposition movement leader, NOT a Government leader with the authority to actually affect things. We can't compare those two directly.

This person clearly doesn't know the massive gulf between reactor-grade Uranium and weapons-grade Uranium. Not to mention how effectively, possession of weapons-grade Uranium is the ability to have nuclear weapons for any fairly major nation. Even the North Koreans could do it.

And, yet, there isn't the sort of willingness to bomb North Korea (or Israel, lol) as there is for Iran.

Israel is allied to the US, and thus 'not in national interest', just like how it's not in the national interest to bomb England or France.
North Korea is a very special situation. Seoul is held hostage by NK by thousands of pieces of conventional artillery and rockets within range of causing massive death and destruction. Attacking NK is pretty much out of the question due to the huge loss of life and economic damage that would occur if NK opened up, and before the US could roll them over.

Yeah, well. The Pentagon also 'plans' for foreign powers invading America, India nuking Pakistan, and any number of scripts from '24'. Also 'monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs' is a hilarious term for 'conventional bomb'.

Yeah, but no president/presidential candidate seriously is proposing that we preemptively invade Canada; there is serious discussion about actually using military force against Iran.

Well, Canada isn't a government that is under international economic sanction to cease it's nuclear development, defying that, and building armored highly attack resistant defendable nuclear enrichment sites for it's 'peaceful power usage', while under an unstable government system that has potentially opposing military, civil and religious public authority structures that has had a history of antagonism with the US.

[HMS Conqueror]

Is the proposed disaster that Iran might get a bomb, or that US might stop Iran getting a bomb?

Neither: he's concerned that the US and/or Israel will attack out of unfounded fear (brought on by propaganda and war hawks) and things will escalate from bad to very bad.

Castro does not believe Iran is actually going to build a bomb, and this is a rational position: there's no hard evidence that Iran is going to. There is evidence that they are doing research that might have military applications... but being ready to build a bomb and being determined to build one are very, very different things. The confirmed enrichment facilities are doing, at most, 20% enrichment - nuclear power work - according to the IAEA. Weapons grade uranium is more like 95% enriched.

What Castro does believe is that America and Israel are very likely going to attack Iran over this fear, and he points to rhetoric coming out of the US government and presidential candidates to back this up.

Furthermore, he fears Israel's nuclear weapons, which they won't confirm or deny, and are thus, in the words of the column, "unaccountable". If a war starts and things escalate, these weapons might come out... and things really go downhill from there.

Once they demonstrate without a doubt that they have a bomb it is too late to do anything. Anyone who doesn't think they're making one is willfully deceiving himself.

Anyone who thinks Israel is going to nuke Tehran for ostensibly no reason at all is away with the fairies.

[Simon_Jester]

Castro does not believe Iran is actually going to build a bomb, and this is a rational position: there's no hard evidence that Iran is going to. There is evidence that they are doing research that might have military applications... but being ready to build a bomb and being determined to build one are very, very different things. The confirmed enrichment facilities are doing, at most, 20% enrichment - nuclear power work - according to the IAEA. Weapons grade uranium is more like 95% enriched.

What Castro does believe is that America and Israel are very likely going to attack Iran over this fear, and he points to rhetoric coming out of the US government and presidential candidates to back this up.

Either I'm confused, or he's confused... last I checked, I thought the IAEA did think Iran had a bomb program, while the CIA was saying that they didn't (or at least that there wasn't enough evidence).

[HMS Conqueror]

Anyone who doesn't think they're making one is willfully deceiving himself.

Yeah, and Saddam totally had WMDs.

Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program, that was successfully destroyed by an Israeli bombing in 1981.

But, hell, even if you're right (and you probably aren't), we shouldn't be launching pre-emptive wars at all. They are illegal and immoral - you're turning some remote possibility of violence into a guaranteed conflict, and it would be a long one with a lot of people getting hurt.

A guaranteed conflict that we will win, rather than a possible future conflict that we might not. Or Iran passing a nuclear weapon to a stateless terrorist group against which there is no effective defence or clear means of retaliation. You dramatically overestimate Iran's conventional military capacity. It's a third world country. Only through having the bomb can it be considered a world power, which is precisely why they want one.

Especially if guys like Castro are right on the consequences:

Anyone who thinks Israel is going to nuke Tehran for ostensibly no reason at all is away with the fairies.

And you don't understand the argument being made here about escalation. If they attack Iran - which they've said outright, and the US presidential candidates (except Ron Paul) have pledged to back - Iran is going to defend themselves, and most likely strike back.

Iran has no ability to strike back. For now. The only way this scenario can happen is if Iran is allowed to get the bomb.



Edit: It's especially hilarious that Castro of all people is saying this, when he did exactly the same thing as Iran, brought the world to the brink of destruction, and in the end failed anyway.

[Stark]

That was America. :v

It's refreshing to see that a few total failures at great cost haven't changed attitudes toward violent solutions, though.

[Alkaloid]

A guaranteed conflict that we will win, rather than a possible future conflict that we might not. Or Iran passing a nuclear weapon to a stateless terrorist group against which there is no effective defence or clear means of retaliation. You dramatically overestimate Iran's conventional military capacity. It's a third world country. Only through having the bomb can it be considered a world power, which is precisely why they want one.

Like North Vietnam and North Korea were third world countries? Man, those massive victories were always guaranteed wins, weren't they. Did you even read what D 13 wrote you twit? Iran and its capabilities or lack thereof are not the only thing that needs to be considered. Iran has allies, people who have it in their best interest for Iran to continue to operate as it does and who are world powers because they do already have nuclear weapons and may very well take it into their heads to get involved if those interests are threatened. That would be very very bad.

[HMS Conqueror]

NK was crushed. It was the PRC that pushed the UN back to the 38th parallel. No one is going to nuke the USA to support Iran outside a dying dictator's demented fantasies.

[Stark]

It's like he's not getting it on purpose.

Maybe he honestly does live in a world where the US can just do whatever it wants and this never leads to tragedy or unexpected outcomes.

It's almost like warmongers are simple minded!

[HMS Conqueror]

Record of peacemongering isn't so hot, but it's not like I'm calling you a Nazi.

It's very well possible that invading Iran would result in 2,000 or so US serviceman deaths, or 200 if there is no occupation (and I don't see why that would be necessary to destroy research and industrial equipment). This is not a world cataclysm and is very well justifiable in light of the potential harm of islamic fruitcake land obtaining the ability to destroy all life on earth.