The roads leading to disaster

[Alkaloid]

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.

Why not? The PRC supported North Korea against the US, the Soviets supported North Vietnam against the US, why would no one support the Iranians against the US? Supporting another force in order to have an enemy bog down in a war against them is a tried and true military and political tactic.

[HMS Conqueror]

None of those countries even have a land border with Iran, nor are they "enemies" of the US. Are you expecting PRC to up and nuke California or something? It's sheer wishful thinking. The only thing holding back the US is domestic disapproval of war following Iraq.

[Panzersharkcat]

"Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death." - Bismarck

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.

Considering that countries that agree to not get the bomb have a tendency to get invaded by the US, I would hardly fault them for wanting one.

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.

As for World War II, for one, Hitler was a unique phenomenon. Not everything is Munich all over again. Second, Godwin's law. Third, I'm so glad only American lives matter to you.

[Panzersharkcat]

Seriously. We survived almost fifty years of Cold War against a USSR with thousands of more nukes than Iran's big fat zero. Iran is hardly an existential threat. Anyway, I think this image is fitting.

[Stark]

The way pressuring people to stop wanting nuclear weapons only underlines how much they need nuclear weapons is the most interesting part of these situations. If the US wasn't so terrified of dealing with equals they may not have created the market for nuclear weapon programs in the first place.

[Alkaloid]

None of those countries even have a land border with Iran, nor are they "enemies" of the US. Are you expecting PRC to up and nuke California or something? It's sheer wishful thinking. The only thing holding back the US is domestic disapproval of war following Iraq.

No, but if China wants to expand its influence in Asia? Maybe take Taiwan by force instead of just yelling about it? Start sinking ships in disputed waters instead of both sides being massive passive aggressive douches about it? That would be the time to do it. If they do it, it would also make sense for them to start funnelling weapons and equipment into Iran so the US is required to expend more effort there for a longer period of time, buying China more time to dick around in the Pacific. Of course, Japan, South Vietnam and the other countries affected by this wont be able to just let China gobble up big chunks of land, so they will fight back, and who knows where the fuck that will lead. Russia relies on Iranian oil, so they also have a vested interest in not allowing the US and Israel to roll in and take it over, or just carpet bomb the place and destroy all the refineries there, so they may well decide to do the same damn thing like they did in Vietnam, just to make things more difficult for the US. It's better all around if it just doesn't happen at all.

[Panzersharkcat]

And of course, there was also the potential alliance the Allies could have had in Mussolini.* Mussolini hated Hitler.** He allied with him only because he felt alienated by the West. Something I was never taught in high school history was the Stresa Front, an agreement between France, Britain, and Italy to keep Austria independent and make sure Germany stuck with Versailles, which broke down after Britain tried to make its own separate agreement with Germany. That lead Italy to get pissed by lack of faith, which then lead to the invasion of Ethiopia because the only thing holding Mussolini back was the fact that British and French colonies were neighbors and he did not want to piss them off. While I could get behind the outrage over attacking Ethiopia, it was, in hindsight, they should have suppressed it a bit for the sake of the Stresa Front, especially as the British were rather hypocritical to get stuck up about that while maintaining their own empire and using chemical weapons on people trying overthrow British rule.

*Well, that might not have been that great if war broke out, what with Italy being the load on the Germans in the actual war.
**"What a clown this Hitler is."
"Hitler is the murderer of Dollfuss... a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool."
"He is a cruel and ferocious character and calls to mind legendary characters of the past: Atilla. Those men he killed were his closest collaborators, who hoisted him into power. It is as if I came to kill with my own hands, Balbo, Grandi, Bottai..."
"National Socialism ... is savage barbarism; the chieftain is lord over life and death of his people. Murder and killing, loot and pillage and blackmail are all it can produce."
"Hitler will arm the Germans and make war - perhaps even in two or three years. I cannot stand up to him alone. ... I cannot always be the one to march to the Bremer. Others must show some interest in Austria and the Danube basin. ... We must do something, we must do something quickly."

[Simon_Jester]

None of those countries even have a land border with Iran, nor are they "enemies" of the US. Are you expecting PRC to up and nuke California or something? It's sheer wishful thinking. The only thing holding back the US is domestic disapproval of war following Iraq.

No, but if China wants to expand its influence in Asia? Maybe take Taiwan by force instead of just yelling about it? Start sinking ships in disputed waters instead of both sides being massive passive aggressive douches about it?

I don't really think they want to- it doesn't line up well with their interests. They've been doing very well for thirty years as an economic and industrial powerhouse; why would they suddenly want to try and conquer an empire, when the only real economic value the territory they want has would be destroyed by fighting over it??

Russia relies on Iranian oil...

Is Russia not a net oil exporter?

[Alkaloid]

I don't really think they want to- it doesn't line up well with their interests. They've been doing very well for thirty years as an economic and industrial powerhouse; why would they suddenly want to try and conquer an empire, when the only real economic value the territory they want has would be destroyed by fighting over it??

I think that if left completely unchecked they would take it at some point just to prove that they can, because they have been saying for so long that Taiwan is really part of China and has rebelled that they almost have to. As to whether they actually would, if they do in the immediate future it will be when the US has naval assets tied up somewhere else, and will likely try to prolong that as long as possible. I'm not saying they will, just that assuming Iran will be entirely isolate in the event of a US/Israeli invasion is very foolish.

Is Russia not a net oil exporter?

Maybe, I thought they bought oil from Iran, I could be wrong. Either way they are selling weapons to them and have enough interest in the middle east that a strengthening of the US presence there is not good news for them.

[K. A. Pital]

...justifiable in light of the potential harm of islamic fruitcake land obtaining the ability to destroy all life on earth.

islamic fruitcake land obtaining the ability to destroy all life on earth.

Where's Shep when you need him? I'm so sick of idiots raving about things they hardly even understand.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't really think they want to- it doesn't line up well with their interests. They've been doing very well for thirty years as an economic and industrial powerhouse; why would they suddenly want to try and conquer an empire, when the only real economic value the territory they want has would be destroyed by fighting over it??

I think that if left completely unchecked they would take it at some point just to prove that they can, because they have been saying for so long that Taiwan is really part of China and has rebelled that they almost have to.

They've also been saying that the proletariat will inevitably triumph over the bourgeoisie for thirty years while merrily building Foxconn factories for the world's low-wage industrial capitalists. The PRC is good at hypocritically saying whatever the fuck they want while pursuing whatever policy they think is in their long term interests.

I have to respect that, it beats saying whatever the fuck they want while screwing over their own country, which is the standard of performance in much of the rest of the world.

Also remember that there is literally no possibility of China being "completely unchecked" against Taiwan, because Taiwan itself is not a naked, defenseless nation. They have considerable air forces and coastal defenses, and invading them would be a difficult prospect for any nation. China would be foolish to rely heavily on a temporary distraction of the rest of the world as the opportunity to kick off a campaign that might result in bloody failures and protracted stalemate.

They just have so incredibly much more to gain by being peaceable. Any time I hear someone talking about China attacking Taiwan as a probable response to a near term event, it makes me think they're just trying to hit the generic checklist of "what if X happens" events that Americans have been fretting about for decades. And no one ever bothers to update the checklist to match changing world conditions...

[Alkaloid]

Yeah, the PRC would have to think they were holding all the cards to attempt it, and the US being focused somewhere else would only be one of those cards so it's not likely. But dealing one of those cards to them on purpose before you have to is not really worth the risk at this stage.

As for the hypocrisy thing, that's worked internally and will presumably continue to do so, but even in international politics if you want to be taken seriously you need to back up your threats at some point. The reason every one is so damn jumpy about the whole US attacks Iran thing is that they have proved they are willing to invade someone if they need to/want to/feel crotchety on a Monday morning. If China seriously intends to become a major player or a superpower it needs the military and economic might to do so, and demonstrate that it is capable of using it to advance it's interests. Shouting across the ocean about how Taiwan has been very naughty and should come home for two or three decades from now doesn't do that, especially if there is no one of comparable strength in a position to oppose you, it just encourages other nations do defy you as well because you obviously don't have the will to force the issue.

[Aaron MkII]

...justifiable in light of the potential harm of islamic fruitcake land obtaining the ability to destroy all life on earth.

islamic fruitcake land obtaining the ability to destroy all life on earth.

Where's Shep when you need him? I'm so sick of idiots raving about things they hardly even understand.

Well it certainly won't do us any good.

I'd like to know how he figures to get off with the same losses as Iraq though. If the US invaded tben they have no reason not to fuck up Gulf traffic or start lobbing missiles at bases in the region or at Israel.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, the PRC would have to think they were holding all the cards to attempt it, and the US being focused somewhere else would only be one of those cards so it's not likely. But dealing one of those cards to them on purpose before you have to is not really worth the risk at this stage.

What risk? That Beijing just got a shipment of Idiot Balls?

As for the hypocrisy thing, that's worked internally and will presumably continue to do so, but even in international politics if you want to be taken seriously you need to back up your threats at some point. The reason every one is so damn jumpy about the whole US attacks Iran thing is that they have proved they are willing to invade someone if they need to/want to/feel crotchety on a Monday morning. If China seriously intends to become a major player or a superpower it needs the military and economic might to do so, and demonstrate that it is capable of using it to advance it's interests.

...Uh, what? What if they don't want to acquire this nebulously defined "major player" status by invading people randomly when it's not to their advantage, and instead prefer to just end up richer than God? Why would they pursue a circular definition of power, in which you beat people up randomly to prove you have power, purely for the sake of proving that they have power? Why do they care what devotees of fake-realpolitik posturing think about whether they're a "major player," compared to their own country's prosperity and excellent trading relationships with the developed world?

It's not like anyone actually pushes them around these days, which is pretty much the definition of "major power." What crazy standard of "major power" are you using, that a nuclear-armed nation with a billion people and a large industrial base doesn't qualify for?

What I don't think you quite grasp is that China does not need imperialism. They are quite capable of looking at the hundred-billion-dollar cost that even a dark-comically one-sided war requires these days, and thinking "it really isn't worth conquering some flyspeck that will be so bombed out by the time we're done that it wasn't worth the money and blood we spent." They have enormous untapped or underused economic potential in their own homeland, and conquest would just divert resources from developing that potential.

You seem to have gotten the notion that a nation cannot have "real" power unless it fights random wars and scares people all the time. That makes very little sense to me.

[Alkaloid]

What risk? That Beijing just got a shipment of Idiot Balls?

Pretty much, yeah. If it could theoretically lead to a multi national war around the pacific rim I'd ideally like everybody involved to be far more cautious than they have been in the past.

...Uh, what? What if they don't want to acquire this nebulously defined "major player" status by invading people randomly when it's not to their advantage, and instead prefer to just end up richer than God? Why would they pursue a circular definition of power, in which you beat people up randomly to prove you have power, purely for the sake of proving that they have power? Why do they care what devotees of fake-realpolitik posturing think about whether they're a "major player," compared to their own country's prosperity and excellent trading relationships with the developed world?

They might not want to have control over any more territory and just keep making money, but that strikes me as being unlikely given pretty much every superpower in history has started, if not directly annexing places they like, going to a whole lot of effort to ensure what goes on there is what they want to go on there.

It's not like anyone actually pushes them around these days, which is pretty much the definition of "major power." What crazy standard of "major power" are you using, that a nuclear-armed nation with a billion people and a large industrial base doesn't qualify for?

The ability to push other people around. A billion strong nuclear armed country is a qualifier for sure, but if all that ever happens every time China and another country have a dispute is a lot of noise, no one is going to be too bothered by it and will just do whatever they feel like, not much different to how things currently stand. If it isn't going to do anything with the changes it makes then why bother changing at all, you could do a lot of good with all the money they have spent on aircraft carriers and the like.

What I don't think you quite grasp is that China does not need imperialism. They are quite capable of looking at the hundred-billion-dollar cost that even a dark-comically one-sided war requires these days, and thinking "it really isn't worth conquering some flyspeck that will be so bombed out by the time we're done that it wasn't worth the money and blood we spent." They have enormous untapped or underused economic potential in their own homeland, and conquest would just divert resources from developing that potential.

Very few major powers that have started creating empires have needed to. It still happens, normally because someone gets it into their head that the state is more important than the people in the state, and that the betterment of the state is more important than the betterment of the people in the state. More education and improved living conditions, while better for the people, are not necessarily better for the state itself, after all, if a huge segment of you population are going to be working in low skilled factory jobs how well educated do they really need to be?

You seem to have gotten the notion that a nation cannot have "real" power unless it fights random wars and scares people all the time. That makes very little sense to me.

You can develop types of power without fear and war, but the way Chinas' defence forces are changing that doesn't appear to be the case. Nuclear weapons already almost guarantee their defence, while aircraft carriers and long range aircraft have almost no purpose but imperialism and power projection, and they are sure as hell trying to build more of those. Combine that with their insistence that a sovereign nation is their territory, and that they also make disputed claims to several other land masses and areas of ocean and I don't think expecting them to make use of them is unreasonable. By the same token if they build those things and don't make use of them then why build them in the first place?

[bobalot]

Oh look it's HMS Conqueror making fantastic claims again.

This is the same guy who claimed that the USA could default on its debts to China and render its currency worthless and somehow it would be the Chinese who would be screwed.

All based on his gut feeling... of course.

[HMS Conqueror]

Fantastic claims like that a third world crazy nation isn't a military superpower, or it having nuclear bombs would be Bad.

If you disagree with my arguments on that thread I'm happy to discuss it there btw, but the passive aggressive sniping is off-topic here.

[Akhlut]

No moreso than any other form of violence or warfare.

Except that these days conventional warfare or other violence isn't guaranteed to kill over 80% of humanity within a year. If the nukes start flying, well... :v

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

So did Wilson, FDR, and Truman; turns out modern warfare's a complete bitch, and maybe we shouldn't elect leaders eager to hop into it, like Castro suggests?

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.

Yes, why would we want leaders MORE like MLK than not in office?

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.

Good to know we don't have to worry about nuclear armament escalation if its done by our friends, even though it does give direct reason for our foes to want to get nuclear arms themselves.

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.

Good to know it's okay to kill who knows how many innocent Iranians should we go to war with them to stop them from trying to acquire the bomb. It's only a problem if they can harm our allies.

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.

The only reason our ally Israel isn't under the EXACT same situations is because the US continually vetoes anything the UN tries to pass as far as sanctions go. Hell, they even have a history of antagonism with the US!

Extra hypocrisy fun: aside from the embassy hostage situation, anything and everything that Iran has done, the US has done in much greater quantity and with much more horrific results. They fund Hizbollah, we've funded death squads throughout central America and Africa. They warred with Iraq, we did so twice (after arming both sides of their war). They want to develop nuclear weapons, we have the largest nuclear arsenal on earth. They execute members of a minority group, we do that all the time. But, I guess because they wouldn't accept our own dictators and secret police ruling in our stead in their nation, we gotta make them learn to love us via precision airstrikes and assassinations of their people.

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

Fuck off.

I didn't dismiss the content, or express disagreement with it at all. I am questioning how newsworthy it is. Very different things. But, by all means, continue your holier-than-thou act.

[Rabid]

"News & Politics"

It doesn't need to be new to be discussed.

[K. A. Pital]

Fantastic claims like that a third world crazy nation isn't a military superpower, or it having nuclear bombs would be Bad.

If you disagree with my arguments on that thread I'm happy to discuss it there btw, but the passive aggressive sniping is off-topic here.

No it's not moron, you said Iran could destroy all life on earth, I'll stress that. That's way above most of the routine idiocy which flies here and there. That's A-grade idiocy. So let's discuss it.

[HMS Conqueror]

Depends how many bombs they build. They probably can't build that many in a short space of time, but the proposal is to let them do whatever, so it will happen eventually.

[Nephtys]

None of those countries even have a land border with Iran, nor are they "enemies" of the US. Are you expecting PRC to up and nuke California or something? It's sheer wishful thinking. The only thing holding back the US is domestic disapproval of war following Iraq.

No, but if China wants to expand its influence in Asia? Maybe take Taiwan by force instead of just yelling about it? Start sinking ships in disputed waters instead of both sides being massive passive aggressive douches about it? That would be the time to do it. If they do it, it would also make sense for them to start funnelling weapons and equipment into Iran so the US is required to expend more effort there for a longer period of time, buying China more time to dick around in the Pacific. Of course, Japan, South Vietnam and the other countries affected by this wont be able to just let China gobble up big chunks of land, so they will fight back, and who knows where the fuck that will lead. Russia relies on Iranian oil, so they also have a vested interest in not allowing the US and Israel to roll in and take it over, or just carpet bomb the place and destroy all the refineries there, so they may well decide to do the same damn thing like they did in Vietnam, just to make things more difficult for the US. It's better all around if it just doesn't happen at all.

Stop reading shitty Tom Clancy novels, bad episodes of 24, etc.

Taking Taiwan by force? The world economy right now between first-class nations is so intertwined, that any armed conflict spells economic disaster for the entire planet. In fact, even an aggressive disruption of trade from heightened tensions would be godawful.

No, the US is not horrified of it being tied down in Iran so that then other nations will start gobbling up territory. Although Iraq was a horrific expense, the pentagon often states it's goal is to able to fight '2 major wars, one minor'. A few carrier groups can hold down anywhere long enough for boots to be sent out if need be.

The ONLY thing that could hold back the US from hitting Iran in some capacity is public disapproval.

Except that these days conventional warfare or other violence isn't guaranteed to kill over 80% of humanity within a year. If the nukes start flying, well... :v

For one, 80 percent of humanity is an exaggeration. Just to be clear, there aren't enough operational, deliverable nuclear weapons to do that now, or ever. It'll be really godawful bad, but it's not 80 percent extinction bad.

But more seriously, is this new? It's the best things have ever been. EVER, in terms of major nations and their hold on nuclear weapons. Yes, it's said that the US and Russia still operate as they did during the cold war. Except nobody wants or expects war. NATO no longer fears a tank invasion through Germany. The 'USSR' no longer expects invasion either. China doesn't have more than a hundred deliverable weapons, and mostly on crude platforms.

So did Wilson, FDR, and Truman; turns out modern warfare's a complete bitch, and maybe we shouldn't elect leaders eager to hop into it, like Castro suggests?

Are you suggesting Wilson, FDR and Truman were eager to hop into warfare? Or are you suggesting since then, many US Leaders were? Name one US president besides Bush that was 'eager' to hop into a war? It ends up, part of global politics is having your options on the table, especially against irrational and antagonistic nations.

Yes, why would we want leaders MORE like MLK than not in office?

Because civil leaders are not in positions of authority, and have no higher chance of being better than a government leader? See Pre-election Obama vs post-election's track record. An 'MLK' administration or similar would likely fare not much better.

Good to know we don't have to worry about nuclear armament escalation if its done by our friends, even though it does give direct reason for our foes to want to get nuclear arms themselves.

That's how the world works, buddy. If someone has something, an enemy will want a +1.

Good to know it's okay to kill who knows how many innocent Iranians should we go to war with them to stop them from trying to acquire the bomb. It's only a problem if they can harm our allies.

How about the number of allied innocents at risk of being blow up, should the nuclear weapons actually be used? One important thing also is that Invasion is practically off the table the instant a nation gets a nuclear weapon, and Iran has been a consistant global rogue? Especially when these innocents are being FLAGRANTLY used as hostages by their Government which is deliberately placing nuclear development sites in densely packed civilian office buildings, and city blocks?

The only reason our ally Israel isn't under the EXACT same situations is because the US continually vetoes anything the UN tries to pass as far as sanctions go. Hell, they even have a history of antagonism with the US!

So does England. History of Antagonism stops mattering when you've been exceptionally close allies for 3+ generations.

Extra hypocrisy fun: aside from the embassy hostage situation, anything and everything that Iran has done, the US has done in much greater quantity and with much more horrific results. They fund Hizbollah, we've funded death squads throughout central America and Africa. They warred with Iraq, we did so twice (after arming both sides of their war). They want to develop nuclear weapons, we have the largest nuclear arsenal on earth. They execute members of a minority group, we do that all the time. But, I guess because they wouldn't accept our own dictators and secret police ruling in our stead in their nation, we gotta make them learn to love us via precision airstrikes and assassinations of their people.

How simplistic. FAR more people died in the first Iran-Iraq War than both US Invasions combined. Around 2 million people died, Chemical Weapons were deployed en-masse in the longest (8 years) running conventional war in the last century and then some.

The US developed nuclear weapons and employed them to end WW2, then built them up during the Cold War to oppose the USSR, before that ended. Are you saying that having weapons is inherently 'horrific', or perhaps the act of developing them to fight a global war against explicitly and inarguably evil empire builders was the 'horrific' part?
Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons so it can act without accountability and against international sanction still.

When exactly does the US 'execute minority groups all the time'?

You're seeing this as some sort of magical 'good and evil' thing. Reality doesn't work like that. Nations look after their self interest, the interest of their allies, the interest of friends/neutrals and everyone else a distant third.

Depends how many bombs they build. They probably can't build that many in a short space of time, but the proposal is to let them do whatever, so it will happen eventually.

Just to save you some headache, enough bombs to destroy all life on Earth exceeds the number of nuclear bombs in existance right now. They are NOT building tens of thousands of bombs or more. That's never the issue. The issue is enough bombs to blow up a few cities and thus cause millions of deaths.

[HMS Conqueror]

Depends whether you believe in nuclear winter, and the various computer simulations so far produced. I haven't looked at it in great depth myself so it may be nonsense, but a lot of clever people believe it.

Maybe your next move is to say that will only destroy 95% of life on earth? Ok, but I don't see how it changes the effect of the statement.

[Nephtys]

Depends whether you believe in nuclear winter, and the various computer simulations so far produced. I haven't looked at it in great depth myself so it may be nonsense, but a lot of clever people believe it.

Maybe your next move is to say that will only destroy 95% of life on earth? Ok, but I don't see how it changes the effect of the statement.

There's a lot of exaggerations about nuclear weapons that we just need to stop perpetuating. Nuclear Winter is not scientifically plausable. At no point in time, would '100 percent extinction' be possible. What is a true statement instead could be that a nuclear war can destroy the civilizations of modern nations. There's a difference. It's still horrific beyond belief, but actually true.