They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran

digitalnirvana

India is a democracy and it is as a nuclear deterrent, completely different topic. I do not know about Israel.

Pakistan got their nuclear capability gifted from China Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Pakistan's nuclear program is completely a reactionary one in response to India's and has serious security concerns, please read up on A Q Khan.

North Korea got their nuclear capability from Pakistan/USSR (early plants)/China (before their first test), North Korea and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, again questions over how they got the technology and how secure it is from proliferation.

Cali Red

Just a question RK, where did you hear this? I've never heard that before and I'd think it might have made bigger headlines.

Iran has every right to run it's drills in whatever fashion they see fit, IMO. But if people think it's not intended as a poke in the eye to the west, and most specifically to the US you're crazy. Again, I've got no problem with it really but chances are it's going to escalate tensions at a minimum and start a military conflict at worst.

peterstorey

You didn't need it any more than Iran (and should probably have spent the money on sorting poverty in some of the regions), why no sanctions and threats?

digitalnirvana

During the 1971 India-Pakistan war the US 7th fleet would have attacked India if not for the USSR counterbalance. That triggered India's nuclear program.

We had US sanctions for decades, please google.

Iran is not a democracy, India is. India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy, Pakistan does not, North Korea does not, Iran if/when nuclear capable might not.

India has an impeccable record of not starting any of the wars she has fought.

India is the third country in the world to have successfully destroyed all of her existing chemical weapons stockpiles.

Lastly, India did not steal technology/infiltrate other countries to obtain nuclear capability. The Indian nuclear program is largely indigenous with some capability leased from erstwhile USSR.

India's poverty is a challenge, however there is a mistaken perception that India's military spending/moon missions etc. are based on foreign aid, that needs to be corrected.

Cali Red

Clearly we are trying to start a war with those damn Iranians. We'd never want to help them as we are just trying to dominate international waters.

U.S. Navy rescues Iranian sailors - CNN.com

Maybe we'll just hold them hostage now. YES!!

Danny1982

Fars News Agency :: Iranian Navy Thwarts Pirate Attack on Saudi Oil Tanker in Int'l Waters

What's your point?

Danny1982

So do you think if two countries have a conflict, it will be safer if they both had nuclear weapons, than if only one of them had them?

digitalnirvana

When did I say that?

India had nuclear capability in 1974. It was developed in-house. In response to aggressive maneuvers of the US during the 1971 war. The 7th fleet was nuclear capable and was preemptively moved to the Bay of Bengal by Nixon/Kissinger and would have attacked India if the USSR did not deploy it's own fleet to trail the USS enterprise.

Pakistan got their technology readymade solely in response to India's, their first nuclear test was carried out by China. Please google CHIC-4. The political situation then was Pakistan and China were USA's allies against USSR, and India was an ally of USSR.

If anything, the US and China wanted to counterbalance the USSR and India in S Asia by giving nuclear capability to Pakistan. That has not been good for the region.

peterstorey

The sanctions were ineffective and only lasted for a couple of years (which is probably why I completely forgot about them ). Most of the other points you make could easily be transferred and applied to Iran (even democracy which was ousted by the US in 1953).

Danny1982

I thought the US is trying to control the spread of the nuclear weapons..

Was a nice move though by the US to hand over nuclear weapons to the country where Osama bin Ladin was hiding.

Danny1982

I don't think Iran started any wars either..

peterstorey

And now Iran wants to counterbalance Israel, same old story. Arguably it has been good for the region by preventing a more conventional war.

digitalnirvana

I am not talking about the 1998 sanctions which were withdrawn in months. There were severe US economic sanctions during 1971-1978, plus the food supply during the first few decades of India's independence was insufficient. I am not blaming the US for this, because the political context at the time was driven by the cold war.

Plus, I am not saying Iran does not have a right to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent, even if it is not a democracy it does have a functional society and - surprisingly - more moderate than it's immediate oil-rich neighbor.

I merely pointed out your example of countries was incorrect - clubbing Pakistan and North Korea with India and Israel? in terms of their nuclear capability is misleading - simply because these countries obtained the technology in completely different ways and influenced by different reasons. I am out, do not want to discuss about India in this thread.

digitalnirvana

I am sorry, did I say the US is trying to control the spread of nuclear weapons? I have no comment on the Iran situation, my response was to Peterstorey's comment mentioning India's nuclear capability in a list of some other countries.

Neither did I. But India has a declared no-first-use policy. Reiterating, my response was to stress on the fact that India is a separate case, not to be clubbed together with Pakistan/DPRK simply because all these countries are nuclear capable.

No. It would be the same old story if a third power were to arm Iran to counterbalance Israel. Iran by all accounts is developing their capability in-house, with no direct aid from any world power. Pakistan and DPRK were directly aided by China.

peterstorey

You can't just ignore it because the parallels with Iran are evident.

digitalnirvana

It is not actually, that is what I was trying to say. India is a completely separate situation than Iran is/was in. Except the economic situation of pre-1991 India and current Iran, there is no comparison. I am not ignoring India's nuclear program's history either and am OK to discuss, but that is not for this thread. Currently we are talking off topic.

sglowrider

Ironic twist: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/wo...rescue.html?hp

mjs020294

Jamaran was part of Iran's 16th fleet of warships which returned home last week after accomplishing a 70-day mission in the Gulf of Aden and the high seas where the Iranian warships defended the country's cargo ships and oil tankers against attacks by Somali pirates.


Lets set aside the fact you are trawling the web for any shred of evidence that supports your view, no matter how dubious the information......his point was its ironic the US came to the aid of Iranians. If the shoe was on the other foot the US merchant seamen would be under arrest for spying now.

Some good shots on the news earlier of the Iranians hugging US military personnel when they were rescued. It will be interesting to see how it gets reported on Iranian TV.

edit - OMG, that site is hilarious. Talk about a big pile of steaming propaganda. Why would anyone go near that site unless they had a gun to their head. Although it is kind of funny and addictive.

Danny1982

Can't take the news that you don't like do you?

First of all, I got there through Google News that I browse everyday. They had it on their main news page like a week ago.. You just didn't click on it because you didn't like the title.

Second, Talking about propaganda, I wonder then why would anybody wanna get anywhere near foxnews!

Third, the comparison with the hikers who were INSIDE the borders of Iran? Yes, that's the same..

mjs020294

Lets pretend for a second I watch Fox News, which I have never done for a single minutes of my life. Fox is heavily biased but it it not a propaganda machine for a controlling regime. Its funny how often idiots on here even bring up Fox News. Its a cable channel with ratings around 1-2 million out of a population of over 310 million.

I don't even watch mainstream news in the US/UK because of the biased. The very last thing any impartial person would do is read a site like FARS.

Big fucking deal if an Iranian boat responded to a distress call. Any boat is legally obligated to help others in distress at sea.

Mozza

So why you making a big deal of the yanks helping the Iranians?

mjs020294

I didn't

Helping a distressed vessel is a tad different that taking military action against pirates. The irony it is was the very same fleet the Iranians have been posturing against that was helping out an Iranian merchant vessel. They had been held captive a month.


I bet this guy will be popular back home:

On Friday, Fazel ** Rehman, a 28-year-old Iranian fisherman, had a warmer greeting for the carrier task force.

“It is like you were sent by God,” said Mr. Rehman, huddled under a blanket in this vessel’s stern. “Every night we prayed for God to rescue us. And now you are here.”

gooDevil

I don't watch Fox News either, i do see some clips now and again, like on the daily show. My impression is one of a propaganda machine for a controlling regime.

Plechazunga

Why is it that people who want the US to lay off Iran feel this need to make the US and Iranian governments equivalent?

These positions can be held at the same time you know: 1) Iran is run by a hideously immoral autocratic theocracy, and it would be very worrying if they acquired nuclear weapons; 2) It would be immoral and stupid to go to war with them in order to stop them getting nuclear weapons. 3) If there's a better way of stopping them, it might be worth trying.

For the record, if I was in the Iranians' position, I'd want to get nukes too. In the short term it boosts their regional power (until the Saudis and Egyptians else respond by getting them too). In the long term, by current demographic trends within 30 years Israel will no longer be majority secular. Of the two sets of religious loons, I have marginally more faith in the rabbis not suicidally launching nukes than the mullahs...but that's only because they can't press buttons on shabbas, which rules out one day of every week.

Saliph

Well, I have a lot less 'faith' in the rabbis launching nukes than the mullahs, seeing as there is no mainstream notion of martyrdom and jihad in Judaism. That's what's really scary about Islamists getting a hold of a nuclear weapon. The deterrence factor is gone.

But hey, either side is perfectly capable of creating a clusterfuck beyond repair.

Plechazunga

Judaism pretty much invented the concept of martyrdom.

Martyrdom in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saliph

They're not comparable.

africanspur

If the Mulllahs were as obsessed with martyrdom and jihad as they're made out to be, they could just get it all done with and attack one of the US allies (Israel/Saudi) in the region right now. Or, even better, just close the straits or go for the fifth fleet just on their doorstep? Save themselves years and a whole load of money and just get their jihad and martyrdom in there now.

Saliph

Their wish for martyrdom is balanced only by their wish to inflict as much misery, death and destruction as possible on their enemies. Attacking Israel/USA/Saudi now fulfills only one of those ambitions. Attacking them with nukes... now we're talking.

mjs020294

Its a shit news station for sure but to compare it to something like Fars is ridiculous. Fox has an obvious biased whereas Fars is a propaganda machine for the government. Fox is watched by less than 1% of the US population, I am guessing a very large percentage of Iranians are forced fed Fars.

africanspur

Interesting. Can you link me to the many instances in history which prove that the shiites are exceptional in their desire for martyrdom and holy war, to a level unparalleled in other religions or even in sunni Islam?

Could you also tell me why this majority Shiite country or empire, one that is so indoctrinated in the ideals of martyrdom and jihad, hasn't started a war for hundreds of years? Were they waiting for nukes to be invented?

Then, why you would be so convinced that Iran and the Mullahs would immediately launch a nuclear strike on Israel/US installations in the region, when Israel's minister of defence has said that Israel is aware that Iran's nuclear programme is not about Israel, while the head of Mossad has said that a nuclear Iran would not be an existential threat to Israel? Are you privy to information about Iran's nuclear programme or Israel's security that these two are not?

Finally, you said that the scariest thing about Islamists getting nukes is that the deterrence factor would be gone. Ignoring that this flies straight in the face of MAD, why would there have been any deterrence for a set of brutal, martyrdom-seeking fundamentalists in the first place?

africanspur

My impression of fox is a channel that is watched by only a few and thankfully influences only a small percentage of those. It seems to have been amplified a bit here in the UK because of the sheer stupidity of people like Beck and O'Reilly and our desire to constantly portray the Americans as stupid.

Saliph

- Right. First of all, I thought it was rather obvious that I was taking the argument to the extreme (though I absolutely think that the Islamic doctrines of jihad and martyrdom posing a potential problem is a valid point, and has to be taken into consideration). But hey, I'll play, I like a challenge.
Second, who said anything about Shiites? Iran going nuclear will surely lead to Saudi doing likewise, and you have to take that into consideration.
I don't need to prove anything to you, but for Shiite suicide bombing and lunacy you need look no further than Iraq. Exceptional in this regard they are not, but they are certainly no strangers to irrational violence.

- Erm, within the context of my point, no it doesn't.

africanspur

Having read your previous thoughts on Islam on this board, there was such little departure from the past that the illogical stance to take would have been assuming hyperbole on your part.

Iran going nuclear will not lead to the Saudis doing likewise. The Saudis going nuclear tends to elicit this kind of reaction from those that have visited the kingdom: . They'll do their usual. Hard rhetoric, funding various groups to achieve their aims and running off crying to the US. They won't (sorry, can't) build a nuke.

There is little rational about war. There was little rational about Europeans twice in a century dragging the rest of us into your ridiculously destructive wars. There was little rational about sending hundreds of thousands of men over the top of the trenches to be slaughtered by machine gun fire to gain a few inches. There was little rational about the attack on Pearl harbor. There was little rational about the US and USSR pointing their thousands of nukes at each other and the world for 40 years. And yet that all happened, just within the last 100 years. And these are the supposedly 'civilised, secular' nations that we're all supposed to look up to as a model!

One could argue that the Iraq war was also irrational violence but who wants to open that can of worms eh?

There is little rationality involved when it comes to war. The very act of war is irrational.

Yes but your point flies in the face of all logic and historical context. MAD is what has governed nuclear relations since their invention (even for the Islamic country just to the South East of Iran). And considering that your point was that the Iranians are jihad and martyrdom obsessed maniacs, who love these whether equipped with nukes or not, what is the deterrence being removed were they to acquire nuclear weapons?

So I'll ask again. What has made this jihad, martyrdom obsessed country refrain from launching themselves into jihad and martyrdom since the first half of the 18th century? And what information are you privy to, regarding Iran's nuclear programme and Israel's national security, that neither Barak nor Pardo are?

africanspur

Not to mention that for all the huffing and puffing about the Islamic history of blah and blah, the most violent and aggressive regime in the region by far was a secular, Arab nationalist one.

Plechazunga

As far as I can see, most of the time the mullahs act fairly rationally, in their own interests - at least once you accept the fundamentally irrational premise of religious theocracy.

Certainly wanting nukes seems completely rational. There are American troops in three countries they share borders with, and loads more just across the Gulf. They border a nuclear-armed Pakistan, with a nuclear-armed and increasingly belligerent Israel a few hundred miles away.

It's also rational, though probably in vain, for the US and Israel to try damn hard to stop them getting nukes, and for Western democracies to hope they succeed. But launching an attack would be catastrophic IMO, with probably worse results than letting them get the bomb.

Mozza

You did make a big fuss and continue to do so. So far you've posted a link, a quote and a picture, no fuss at all

Cali Red

My point is people like you act as if the US only has a military presence in the area to antagonize the situation. The fact is the US Navy is acting in the region just like anyone else. If anything it's a much larger deterrent to pirates than almost any other military in the region.

mjs020294

I didn't post the link , that was my point. I only responded to link to Fars. And if some of you actually read the account of what happened the Americans went above and beyond under difficult circumstances in this instance

mjs020294

Iraq's reactors were taken out with little fuss, and technology has improved since then. Precision bombing and cruise missiles can neutralist the Iranian facilities without too much incident. The Iranians can then make the decision to mount some sort of attack and lose their entire military or lick their wounds and forget about obtaining nukes.