Past EED rants

Labels

Live leaderboard

Poker leaderboard

Voice of EED

Wednesday, 13 October 2004

Iranians want nukes [Lurks]

This is a bit of a worry. I thought the whole Iranian nuclear issue was simular to the North Koreans in that it is fundamentally not useful enough and too expensive to develope to fruition but is being pursued to win concessions from the West.
Clearly that's not the case. It looks like Iranian people at best think that they should have nuclear technology because the 'powerful' countries do and to deter Israel. At worst, you've got your standard sheet-wearing Islamic nut jobs that apparently believe the Koran tells them to go nuclear.
Very worrying. Bizarrely virtually all of them seem to believe they have nuclear weapons already which is a good demonstration of how little they actually know about what their government is doing. That's the problem right there isn't it - no accountability.
Who's to know if some nut job faction wont rise to power over night and decide to cleans Israel with the fire of Allah or something?
This country cannot be allowed to go nuclear. I'd rather we bombed the living shit out of them and caused a huge diplomatic rift between the West and the Middle East than let these fuckers go nuclear.
Arabs and nuclear weapons are just not on.

29 comments:

  1. It's a bad idea for anyone to have nukes, full stop, I don't think it's fair to pick out a culture that operates on different principles to us :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is fair to pick on them because their different culture involves killing of the infidels. If we could roll back time and dump our nuclear weapons then ace but we can't. I'd also really rather the French and the US didn't have nukes either, not to mention India and Pakistan but what can you do?
    What you can do is stop unstable nut job countries like Iran and North Korea from getting nuclear weapons because these motherfuckers will use them. Not if or when, if they have them they will use them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jeez Jay, "We are not talking here about a war between countries, but a war between religions. There are commands in Holy Koran that we must keep up to date with technology and weaponry." Nut-jobs like this don't care if they kill themselves in the process you know, just as long as they get the infadels. You're applying your own model of common sense + law = seperate from spoon fed belief here. That dosen't exist for these fellas.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I dunno, im really not so worried about them having nukes. Im far more concerned with Israel, US and North Korea. All insanely aggressive nations without any respect for human lives. Funny thing is, the only reason Iran feels the need to get nukes is because they are afraid of "the west" invading them. The only problem here with religion is that we shoot muslims on sight.
    And as far as i know only one nation has used nukes ever.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, Iran wants nukes because of Israel. If they're afraid of being invaded it is because of the nuclear program. That's the only thing that will get them invaded. Well, that and training/supporting terrorists but that's harder to prove and so less likely.
    The point being, when someone like Iran has nukes then you can bet that various fundamentalists are a lot closer to being able to gain access to nukes. That's what everyone is afraid of. I don't doubt that the average Iranian or even their government has absolutely no intention of using nuclear weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually no, they are not afraid of being invaded because of the nuclear program. They are afraid of being invaded because the west has turned out to be absolutely insane. From their point of view its not hard to see why. the US gave Saddam the gas AND all other hardware used when he invaded Iran. The US supports Israel, and helped Israel to cover up their nuke program (just take the resolution on the satellites as an example). The CIA fucked the Iran leaders because of an Oil matter. The US first kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, then proceeded to bomb civilians for a decade and then they invade Iraq again for some fucked up reasons.
    Well, thats the fear. But starting another war because some nukes might be closer geographically to some fundamentalists is just bizarr. Its like the west is out on a mission to produce the largest amount of religious nutters since the holy wars. I mean for every civilian casualty in Iraq you get a fresh baked group of suicide bombers! SWEET!

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's the thing isn't it - if Iran gets working nukes, there's a real worry over their ability to secure them and stop them falling into the wrong hands. Although, admittedly, it's not a lot more worrying than all the unaccounted-for nukes floating around the former Soviet Union, it's still a major concern. Never mind letting a potentially religious fundamentalist nation have nukes (one already does - hello, US of A!), letting a country which frankly can't be trusted to wipe its own arse and is a hive of terrorist activity have weapons that can destroy entire cities is a Bad Fucking Idea.
    On a national level, though, the fact that Israel has nuclear capability scares me more than the rest of it put together. India and Pakistan are sabre-rattling at each other but it's hard to see them actually launching nukes; the USA won't use largescale nukes again, although the fact that they're so keen on tactical nuclear armaments is a bit scary. The French and the British are both safe hands, in my opinion (whatever you say about the French, they may take very little shit but they're not stupid enough to go actually using nukes). Even North Korea, realistically, isn't hugely likely to start flinging nukes at the South or Japan - they just want nuclear capability to make themselves appear more threatening and win status at the negotiating table.
    The Israelis, on the other hand, are positively insane at times. It's really not hard to envisage them deciding to chuck nukes into unfriendly Arabic countries if some atrocities were committed on Israeli soil, or if there was invasion-type sabre rattling on the Syrian border.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Couple of points on that which aren't right, in my view. Firstly the India and Pakistan thing was the closest we've come to having a nuclear exchance since the cuban crisis. Pakistan had deligated commanders in the field the authority to use battlefield class nuclear weapons. Nuclear shells, that sort of thing. Pakistan knows it cannot stand up to an Indian invasion and hence it had a policy that if he believed there was an invasion, to use nuclear weapons at once. That is a little known and quite scary fact. The US actually sent an envoy to have some particularly harsh words (probably saying things like - if you nuke anyone, we'll conventionally bomb you into oblivion).
    Secondly, the Iraelis. I have no love for them but actually their nuclear weapons are essentially a resort for when they believe the State of Israel will be destroyed. There's never been any indication they have believed otherwise. Israelis are one of the more intelligent groups in that part of the world and they know full well that using nuclear weapons is a Bad Idea on many levels. If there was evidence of an invasion along the Syrian border, they would probably just destroy it convincingly with their rather formidable conventional firepower. Why on earth would they nuke a neighbour when they've got enough conventional grunt to do it (and in fact have done, several times throughout history).
    Alfa's lefty agenda seems to be taking a strange twist. Nukes being geographically closer to fundamentalists isn't really the problem now, the problem is their fairly long and documented history of supporting Islamic fighters by supplying weapons and also, and you could label this worry at other countries too of course, the serious concerns over whether they'd be able to keep tight controls over those weapons.
    Again we seem to be getting into the same fucked up argument as people use with drugs. Well alcohol is legal so why not... The fact X mad and fucked up country has nuclear weapons is no reason not to be pretty damn worried when another one comes on. It's just like you've delivered another free roll of the die for the reaper.
    Had either side had nuclear weapons in the Iraq/Iraq war - do you doubt they would have used them? What would make anyone believe that sort of conflict is any less likely to happen in the next 50 years than the last? None whatsoever. If anything, the region is more unstable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It worries the fuck out of me, not necessarily in relation to the Iran/N. Korea situation, but just the whole nukes thing in general. To use a cliche, the Genie is out of the bottle and you can't put it back. We can't uninvent the technology and we can't change physics.
    Anyone who has done 'A' level physics, or has read a Tom Clancy book, has a basic grasp of the principles behind nuclear weapons... and as time goes on, it becomes easier to find out more. Easier to manufacture the equipment required to produce one. Easier to get hold of nuclear materials that spin out of disintegrating nuclear powers...
    And as time goes on, more and more countries will embark on weapons programmes, both overt and covert. I personally don't think we'll be able to contain it... our record isn't great so far. N. Korea probably has them, Iran will probably get them. China, India, Pakistan, Israel. Who's next?
    In the next 20-30 years, I can see a situation developing that will make us nostalgic for the Cold War. Back then, you had two relatively sensible countries who didn't really have any intention of using them. How about gazing down the missile silos of 10 or so middle eastern, asian and african countries that we've been fucking over for the past couple of centuries? I can't imagine that the principles of deterrant will have a great deal of clout in this brave new future.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Im not on a lefty agenda at all. Im probably way further to the right compared to you (and we did discover this in that little test we found on the net).
    My whole issue with this is that i dont want a nuke/bioweap/chemicalbomb blowing up in my backyard. Yet some retards thinks that it ok to keep provoking the only ones in the world likely to do it. Those nations has NEVER done anything aggressive towards the west. The only actions that has been taken has been in a twisted sort of selfdefence by poor desperate cornered people who has nowhere to escape. North korea is totally different matter since its run by a boy whose only interest in life is to be seen, no matter what. Im really upset by the fact that we are pushing the arab situation BACK in time, Creating a mess that cant be solved without annihilationg one side or the other.
    And no, i dont trust the US more than i trust Iran. The US is the only nation to have used nukes. The US has spent god knows how much cash to spread chemical and biological weapons all over the world to extremist organisations. And the US is constantly refusing to get rid of their own. And i understand Iran, if they want to stay alive they need nukes, and they need em fast.
    There is only one aggressor in this, and that is the west. There was a calm after afghanistan in the whole region which was utterly destroyed by the iraq invasion. There was a chance to finally fix relations and it was destroyed. Instead the west is now a threat to every kid in the region. Good Work Fellas!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it any more right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In the same way that repeating claims about Iraq's weapons capability over and over didn't actually make them right...
    Off on a tangent somewhat, but the point being that we're kind of on a shakey peg when it comes to weighing in against foreign, especially middle eastern, countries regarding their weapons development programmes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, true enough but the point is when it comes down to protecting yourself - you're not going to go "Oh well, morally they have a right since we did the same thing" are you? You're going to do what you fucking can to protect yourself and stopping Iran and North Korea from having nuclear weapons has got to preventative medicine of the most potent sort, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think we're all agreed though that the USA is currently the most dangerous nation on the planet.
    North Korea remains in its Orwellian box. Iran see the nuclear option as the only way of countering Israel and the USA. Syria also has a penchant for CBW. Russia is under an Iron First, but the Caucusus is still on the boil. Africa - hm, best gloss over this lot. China haven't sent the fleet to Taiwan yet, but they're happy to export industrial and technological skill to the highest bidder.
    So its business as usual - well, apart from Gaddafi of course...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, yes and no.
    The boys who make the calls to go into Iraq/Iran/Wherever in our dress khakis aren't primarily concerned with whether the camel jockeys are getting nukes are not. They're worried about what will get them elected again so that they can deal with it next term.
    If Bush and Blair stand up next year and say "right, there's these guys called Iran on the other side of the world who have weapons of mass destruction and can use them in 45 minutes flat", I can't imagine there'll be much public or political support this time around. I was fooled last time, I know for damned certain that I won't be so easily convinced again.
    Defying the UN is one thing, but defying the people who keep you in fancy socks and truffles is an entirely less attractive proposition.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The 'no' part of your 'yes and no' doesn't seem to be related to the fact it needs to be done in some sense - but whether our governments have the stomach for it. That's a different issue. I don't think they have either - but then the government has pretty much shattered any faith I had in them essentially working as you'd expect - and I'm not suggesting we attack Iran either, that would be absolutely insane. They do actually have something approaching a government that can be reasoned with and we should try this but with a pretty serious resolve of "look, you're not having nuclear weapons so just deal with that fact."
    Beej's right that North Korea is a very secular and isolated state in some sense but they have in the past done some crazy shit and they have a stunning ability for self delusion. They might build ten nukes and convince themselves they're able to annex Japan or something.
    It will actually be interesting to see what the UN does. Well, obviously the UN wont 'do' anything, it never does. But it'll be interesting to see if any weight of International opinion will shift Iran any more than the standard lip-service it's been dishing out for awhile now.
    The interesting thing from the BBC poll, which kicked this blog off, is that a lot of Iranians believe that nuclear technology will help them make a more prosperous country. That's absolutely wrong of course, they're staring the prospect of sanctions in the face. But then Iranian people don't have much access to a broad spectrum of media which keeps them informed. Kind of a running theme in the region really.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's another damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If we do nothing, we run the risk of Iran getting weapons that might at some point in the future fall into the hands of bad 'uns.
    If we go in and prevent them from having nukes by force, we run the risk that we breed resentment in the region that could in the future lead to some suitcase nutcase with a one way ticket to Washington.
    What a fucking mess.

    ReplyDelete
  18. When I'm at work I really hate it when someone says "this was allowed in the past". Still human beings work that way; Some very dodgy states that got nukes to date; Israel, South Africa, China, North Korea, Pakistan and India. Each in their own way was extremely unreliable and dangerous at the time they went nuke. Did anyone do anything about it? No. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, but clearly the west / UN have some considerable problems with perceived-hypocrisy on its hands if it starts singling states out now. If you're in the singled-out state du jour then it's gonna be really easy for agitators to say "it's racist / culturalist" given that track record. This stuff matters a lot.
    Looking back at the cold war, the much laughed at and then retrospectively quite sort of respected doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) - that neither side would launch a pre-emptive strike because they knew they'd get absolutely wasted on the response strike - actually, probably, worked.
    In the 1973 Yom Kippur war where joint Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi forces attacked Israel, the Arab countries actually got so far into Israeli territory that there was no logical reason the nukes at Israel's disposal were not at complete risk. As my politics tutor at Bristol said, the fact that Israel had a massive conventional offensive countering in different areas really didn't explain the non-usage of nuke weapons that were hours from being captured if you were really worried about appropriation of them. It was all about the "if I do that, what happens next" scenario.
    There's probably some sort of really quite bizarre comfort there. My own view is that nuclear non-proliferation treaties are incredibly important. The problem is that's a bit like saying the sky is up. At the same time, it's very clear that when I grew up and people said "there's never been fifty years without a major war", the West vs Islam thing is the thing that I think can so easily become our major war - if we're not very careful then we clearly could be about to crack the next multi-generational divide.
    To date Osama and pals have been an ultra-minority seeking to play American xenophobia. We must never forget how extremely minor they were. Large scale spontaneous revolutionary movements basically never happen unless there is a systematic abuse of a huge number of people. Pre-9/11 this wasn't the case with the Arab world. Sure, Palestine was a very knotty problem but then it had been for nearly 50 years.
    The difference is now, attacks on mainstream Arab countries (especially when the rationale gets shown latterly to be basically false) has the potential to turn this from some extremists who are mostly, widely, hugely, deplored, into Osama's-dream-result-category. Get this wrong and clearly we can go from the extremists to multi-million person multi-state cultures at war with each other.
    Beej is right - the most dangerous nation on the face of the planet is the nation of immigrants who don't understand anyone outside their own borders. It's really the ultimate irony. America's xenophobia could yet kill us all.
    If I had a magic wand I'd do this; have *massive* programmes of aid and cultural appreciation created and flowing both ways between the west and islamic countries. Massive displays of understanding and solidarity. Of course, as many get over here in Europe, the basic mainstream religion of Islam is actually a fair bit more civilised than christianity on an historical audit of the peoples following it and also in the base texts themselves. The Bible is full of shit-storming fundamentalist righteousness. The Koran basically isn't which is why even the fundamentalists worry obsessively about their interpretations of it which are sick and twisted.
    The depressing thing is that it is the west that will make the future of this conflict. If we engage massively with the middle east, we can start working against the conflicts. If we let the US keep going on its incredible bullshit insular non-understanding culture, you'll change this from a few extremists in lawless towns into a massive cultural and nation-state result. If we actually got out there and gave significant respect for their culture and established major exchanges of commerce then UN sanctions actually have some bite against nuke development. This isn't a pussy-foot solution - it's the only one that doesn't end up in massive ends of blood. These people don't have to be like us anymore than the USSR or China or any other states in the past. But I'm really sure that if we turn this into a black and white Bogeymen against the Righteous debate that we are in for a very very bad time indeed. Frankly, I think the US is too insular and too self-centred to get it right now. Those of us outside it had better try and do something before its too late.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I hate to say this but C&C: Red Alert instantly sprang to mind on reading this thread...Nukes, Suicide bombers...it's got the lot!

    ReplyDelete
  20. And now a very serious development. Extract:

    Shouts of ``Death to America!'' rang out in the conservative-dominated parliament after lawmakers voted to advance the nation's nuclear program, an issue of national pride that provides a rare point of agreement between conservatives and reformers.

    Great. So they'll have to be bombed to get the idea. This'll all end in tears, no mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  21. On the flip side of the coin, maybe if nuclear weapons materials and the ability to make it becomes more common place we'll actually see some development of nuclear technology. Basically everything that is nuclear was invented in the 1950s. All public innovation of nuclear technology ended around the time duck-and-cover started being taught to american kids. The control of nuclear weapons (although absolutely necessary) has made any government research into nuclear technology a political mine field. I think it is pretty sad to say that only french have the balls to continue nuclear research. Thankfully fusion has yet to become a big boogeyman to the public, although it seems like a lack of patience might kill that end of nuclear technology too.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I sure as hell don't want the public 'innovating' nuclear tech, thankyou very much. It's bad enough we've got whole rogue governments and their fucked up views on the world linked to stuff that'd give Oppenheimer a coronary on the spot.
    The US, UK, France, Japanese and Soviet Union all do nuclear research. Thats more than enough eh?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Indeed. The core premise there isn't entirely correct either, there has been a good deal of nuclear energy research in more recent times. Particularly when the G7 countries began talking about global climate impact and realised that one of the largest problems was the developing world's burgeoning need for power. The solution was seen by some to be small, cheap and safe reactors and there's been a good deal of ongoing research in that area. There's a South African consortium which has been working on pebble bed modular reactors for just such targets.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Blah. It's all primitive, heat-the-water-to-turn-the-turbine shit. Nothing has changed in 50 years.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well, you're right of course - nothing has changed - apart from the use of nuclear fuel to create the heat in the first place. You know, the uber nasty evil shit that we don't want anyone running around with :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, heat-the-water-turn-the-turbine shite is hardly limited to nuclear power. You may as well claim that there's been no research on oil or gas-fired power generation either. What other mechanisms are there for getting power from heat? Thermo-electric effect technology simply doesn't generate anywhere near enough power.
    One may as well complain we don't have sky cars or light sabres to be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  27. THEIRANIANHIMSELF6 April 2005 at 02:41

    IM AN IRANIAN IN EXIL SINCE 17 YEARS!!I THINK IRAN SHOULD HAVE NUKE ENERGIE OR WAPPONS,BUT NOT UNDER THIS BRUTAL REGIME!!AND TIL THE DAY US PAYS FOR ALL THOSE MURDERD NUKED JAPANIES LIFES,THEY SHOULD KEEP IT LOW!!USA AND ENGLAND SHOULDNT NEVER MASED WITH OUR POLICY 25 YERS AGO WENN THEY TOOK OUT OUR KING AND REPLACED HIM WITH KOMEYNI!!THEY PLACED A TERRORIST IN THE REGION AND IGNORED IT FOR 25 YEARS!!!NOBODY TALKES ABOUT THE IRANIAN PEOPLE THATS BEEN IGNORED FOR SO LONG UNDER THIS TALIBAN REGIME!!!ALL IM SAYING IS CLEAN YOUR MAS LURKS AND DONT TALK ALL THAT MOTHER FUCKER SHIT!!OK!?COUSE YOU ARE ONLY WORRIED AND AFRREID TO LOOSE YOUR SWEET LIFE THAT ME AND MY PEOPLE NEVER HAD BECOUSE OF YOU!!REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.THE PERSIANS IS ONE OF THE OLDEST NATIONS ON THIS EARTH AND ITS RULES ARE BASED ON HUMAN DIGNITY AND RESPECT AND FREEDOM!!THE IRANIAN PEOPLE NEVER LOST THAIR FAITH TO THOESE RULES!!ITS THE REGIME!!THEY AR NOT IRANIANS THEY ARE ARABS!!YES ARABS THE ONES THAT DESTROYED YOUR TWIN TOWERS AND KILLED SO MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE AND U STILL FRIENDS WITH THEM!!COMMERCIALS OF FLY EMIRATE,SAUDI AIRLINES AND AND AND.AMERICANS STOP BEATING ARAUND THE BUSH AND GO LOOK FOR THE REAL TERRORIST THATS BEEN SITING IN TEHERAN FOR 25 YEARS NOW!!AS FOUR AS I REMEMBER USA HAD NO NEED TO SEND TROOPS OR SHIPS IN TO THE PERSIANGULF AS LONG AS THE IRANIAN KING WAS STILL THERE!!SADDAM COULDNT TAKE PISS WITHOUT ASKING US!!YOU AND ENGLAND PLACED THE TERROR THERE NOW YOU HAVE TO CLEAN IT ALL UP OTHERWISE YES YOU ARE RIGHT THEY ARE GOING TO USE NUKES AS SOON AS THEY HAVE NUKES!!!AND ALL YOU DEMOCRATS,STOP THINKING ABOUT YOUR SELF ALL THE TIME AND LISTEN TO YOUR PRESIDENT ALITTLE THAT HAS MORE BALLS THAN THAT COCK SUCKING PLAYBOY CLINTON OK!!??THANXXXXX

    ReplyDelete
  28. Teheran is a scandinavian spelling of Tehran. Busted Lotta :))))

    ReplyDelete
  29. THEIRANIANHIMSELF7 April 2005 at 03:36

    AND LURKS 1 OTHER THING!JUST BECOUSE A GANG OF IGNORANT PEOPLE THAT ARE NO MORE THAN 2 TO 5000 ARE SCREAMING DOWN WITH USA DONT MEAN THAT 72 MILLION IRANIANS SHOULD BE BOMBED!!NEXT TIME U SEE IT ON TV LOOKE CLOSER THEY ARE NOT MANY!!THE MAJORITY OF THE IRANIANS ARE AGAINST THIS REGIME AND AT THE SAME TIME THEY AGAINST ANY ATTACK ON THAIR GREAT COUNTRY.HADNT THE WESTERN WORLD IGNORING US FOR SO LONG AND LET THE BRUTAL ISLAMIC REGIME DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO WITH US,THIES MULLAHS WOULD OF BEEN GONE A LONG TIME AGO!!THE IRANIANS ARE NOT IRAQIS OR ARABS!!WE ONLY WANT TO BE HELPED MORALY NOT ANY WAY ELSE!!THAT MEANS SHOW THE REST OF THE WORLD WHAT IS HAPPENING THERE EVERYDAY!!SHOW THE HOLE WORLD HOW THE IRANIAN STUDENTS MEN WOMEN CHILDREN YOUNG AND OLD WENT OUT ON THE STREETS ON THE NIGHT OF 9 11 WITH KANDELS OUT OF RESPECT TO ALL THE INOCENT VICTUMS AND HOW SHORTLY LATER THE BRUTAL POLICE BEATED THEM AND TORCHERD THEM!!DONT ALLWAYS SHOW THIES REST OVER FANS OF THIS REGIME SAYING THE SAME SHIT OVER N OVER!!LURKS I JUST NEVER WISH ANYTHING BAD ON ANYONE!!U SHOULNT EITHER !!IRAN WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST AND LOYALEST FRIENDS OF AMERICA BEVORE KOMEINI CAME!!REMEMBER THERE WAS NO CONFLICT IN THE MITTLE EAST BACK THEN!!WE HAD THOES ARABS IN CHEK!!AND TRUST ME THE IRANIAN PEOPLE KNOW WHO IS LEAVING THEM DOWN AND WHOS NOT!!!AND I KNOW THAT THEY KNOW NOT EVERY AMERICAN OUT THERE IS SMALL MINDED LIKE LURKS AND HIS CLAN!!!U DONT EVEN KNOW THE HALF LURKS !!!THANXXXXX

    ReplyDelete