h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When the same country has proven links to terrorist groups, one does tend to view them askance.

SWL,

You seem to be settled here.

I take it you didn't just come over in the tidal wave of refugees from the R2 NACA Board (I remember seeing you there some time ago).

TMOF

Ooh, he's a trouble maker is SWL. Not to be trusted!

My reputation drags behind me I see.

<>

Jesus, the US had a terrorist training school! Ever heard of the School of the Americas?

And? Don't *you* look askance at the USA? If they didn't have nukes already, would you be in favour of them acquiring them?

pedro, what about Iran's repeatedly stated intention to destroy Israel?

Morning all,

There is always the possibility of 'bluffing' to consider.

We could keep sailing subs in and out of Faslane (so that the numerous Russian spies apparently in the UK can have something to report) , but the vessels could carry 'empty' warheads.

If the major reason for having Trident (or any equivalent) is as a 'deterrent' then by definition we are not going to use that scale of weapon first.

Ergo it is only necessary that the rest of the world (France incleded) BELIEVE the subs contain active Tridents = job done. Then we can get back to keeping a force of tactical nuclear devices ,deivered by cruise ( or derivatives) , or by aircraft -a 'converted BA Airbus might work?- so that we can take out (horrible phrase) cities or military targets when and where necessary, without turning the target country into glass.

Cheap solution?
Novo


PS
I have always nurtured a sneaky feeling that the cruise missiles delivered to Greenham Common were dummies. The 'real ones' were elsewhere - but Greenham Common kept the main antagonists in one place , and watchable! How's that for a conspiracy theory?

<>

Yeah. I don't think they should have them either.

But, no matter how 'bad' Iran is, why should we have nukes and they shouldn't? If they did attack Israel, the US (if not Israel) would retaliate. The Iranians aren't that stupid.

So Pedro, by that logic, you had no complaints about the US threatening to invade Iraq prior to the invasion? Or the US threatening military action against Syria or Iran right now is fine?

And basically Israel and the US should just take *your* word that Iran won't attack.

>>Nukes stop all-out wars. They stop police actions becoming a fight to the death.<<

Don't disagree with you there SWL. Still don't see why we need to have nuclear weapons. The US does all the deterring for our side

As for the Iran versus Israel conflict, people seem to be forgetting one simple fact - the Israelis themselves will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and they won't need to use their nuclear weapons to do it.

Ask Iraqi nuclear scientists what happened to their country in the 80s when it tried to get nukes - which probably weren't intended for use against Israel, they would have been pointed at Iran

Arnie, what I mean is; if Britain can decide it's in its national interest to have nukes, why shouldn't Iran? After all, they have seen their neighbours to the west and east invaded by an aggressor, and left in ruins as a result. If Iran gets nukes, it's pretty unlikely the US will even think about invading them in the future.

Which is just a rationale for Iran to have nukes. What nobody can tell me is that, other than them being 'bad', or a threat (which is surely the whole point of having nuclear weapons), why shouldn't they have them? (Please note that this is a different point to 'is it a good thing that they have them', which I'd probably agree that it isn't.)

pedro, what I mean is, Britain isn't routinely threatening the complete and utter destruction of another country. Can you name a country that Britain is routinely and publicly threatening to destroy?

Well, I guess I'll just have to keep thinking that Iran won't risk its own utter destruction to get at Israel. Maybe they're not all criminally insane?




So, it's because they're 'bad' after all?

OK, why would letting Iran get nukes be a good idea?

Umm, how about, it's a religious theocracy where the religion says that dying for the cause of Islam *guarantees* that you and your family get into heaven? (Well, not the women of course). What good is MAD when one side thinks dying's a good thing? Remember, it was an Iranian I believe who said "You in the West love life, but we love death more".

When one side is in the grip of a psychotic death cult, MAD goes out the window. Keep the Iranian hands off nukes, at least until the secularists kick the zealouts out.

And as to letting America doing our deterring for us, remember we're talking about future possibilities 50 years hence. If I give my neighbour my baseball bat to look after for me, what happens if we fall out?

well pedro do you consider completely destroying another country to be "bad"?

And if someone threatens to completely destroy another country, then aren't they by definition "bad"?

If the answer is yes to the above, the yes it comes down to them being "bad" - because you've agreed that logically, they are bad.

ps. And you have, logically, differentiated their "badness" from that of the current nuclear powers.

Do you two actually think that if Iran gets nukes next month, say, then it'll blow Israel up by the end of 2007?

Where we disagree is that I don't think that Iran would use them, certainly not in an unprovoked attack on Israel which would end up with millions of Iranians dead, after the inevitable retaliation. What they say about Israel is pretty bad, but there's a difference between pandering to and inflating anti-semitism at home and the world of realpolitik that the leaders actually inhabit.

And I see SWL's reply merely as Islamophobia, so no need to go there.

And also, I never said it would be a good idea for Iran to have them, it just seems to me that it's hypocrisy for it to be ok for us to have them, but not people we don't like, that's all.

right, and it appears you don't understand the definition of hypocrisy. B/c, as we've now come to accept, Iran and the US are not behaving the same - therefore logically eliminating your claims of hypocrisy.


I'm glad you feel confident in predicting the behavior of an entire country; you should be able to use that to make a lot of $$$ and live a very content life. Please do let me know how that works out for you.