[scratt]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Interception of several technology shipments to Iran has bolstered U.S. suspicions that Iran is secretly developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that could threaten Europe and possibly the United States. An intelligence report this week to Congress said North Korea, China and parts of the former Soviet Union provided Iran through the end of last year with ballistic-missile equipment, technology and expertise. The report said Iran, in trying to improve existing missiles, was ``also pursuing longer-range ballistic missiles.'' A well-placed Bush administration official told The Associated Press on Thursday that U.S. interceptions had strengthened U.S. suspicions that Iran was trying to develop an intercontinental missile that could reach Europe and possibly the United States.

Pleeeeeeeeeez.

Yes and Father Christmas is real.

And hey look at all those checmical and nuclear facilities in Iraq.

Haven't we heard this stuff before somewhere...

The only good news is that the US is so totally screwed in Iraq that it cannot possibly afford yet another war.

Iran have no interest in hitting the US with nuclear weapons. What on earth would it gain them?

I have never been more afraid that the US is out of control than I have been as I have seen this steady build up of the propoganda machine against yet another middle eastern country... Coupled with the veiled attempts to get Israel to do something on behalf of the US, with Big Bro. standing behind...

Now what we should be afraid of is Israel going off half cocked because of this propoganda and sparking a mid to low range ground war, or nuclear exchange.

Iran would want nukes for their own security... heck all the loonies in the west have them!!! But they would never spark a war that they would obvioulsy lose.

How long can we justify the double standard which is "Us civilised chappies can have them but you desert wallahs are just not allowed.. you are too damn unstable old man!" After all we don't go around dabbling in other peoples politics, or invading countries, and then abandoning the mess, now do we.....?

Are you guys scared?

How long can this paranoid Whitehouse continue to threaten world security?

Thank god for the French is all I can say.
I hope the Brits get some sense soon.

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by scratt How long can this paranoid Whitehouse continue to threaten world security?

Min of 4 years.

Want to scare yourself a little more?

[709]

Happiness is a warm gun.

[Luca]

Could you post a link to the article?

[Moogs]

While it's always good to be skeptical of these kinds of reports when brought from Washington these days, the general trend of shifting borders and technological diffusion in that part of the world means that sooner or later, some country we have very poor relations with is going to possess such a weapon.

This is just a natural consequence of advancing technologies and declining manufacturing costs in general. Sooner or later we're going to come to the realization that the only defense against hostile governments (short of a MAD policy like during the Cold War), is to find ways of making the relationship less hostile.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Luca Could you post a link to the article?

linky

Or just set your homepage to the Apple Livepage.. Default in Safari.

Sorry is that a crime? I guess I should have it set to Apple Nova.

Originally Posted by ast3r3x Min of 4 years. Want to scare yourself a little more?

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuk.. You have now scared the bejesus out of me.....

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Moogs While it's always good to be skeptical of these kinds of reports when brought from Washington these days, the general trend of shifting borders and technological diffusion in that part of the world means that sooner or later, some country we have very poor relations with is going to possess such a weapon. This is just a natural consequence of advancing technologies and declining manufacturing costs in general. Sooner or later we're going to come to the realization that the only defense against hostile governments (short of a MAD policy like during the Cold War), is to find ways of making the relationship less hostile.

Spot on. :smokey:

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Moogs Sooner or later we're going to come to the realization that the only defense against hostile governments (short of a MAD policy like during the Cold War)[...]

I think we already do that. There are only a handful of countries that have even a slight chance of damaging us in a first strike to the point that we can't retaliate, and we're allies with all of them. Since they're not going to attack us unprovoked and/or without warning, we don't really have to worry about it. All we've got to do is survive the first attack, and whichever country attacked us could - if we desired it - become a radioactive hole in the ground within a couple hours. You'd have to be Forest Gump stupid to start a war with the USA.

Actually, you're right. That isn't a MAD policy since we'd still be standing at the end.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Dave I think we already do that. There are only a handful of countries that have even a slight chance of damaging us in a first strike to the point that we can't retaliate, and we're allies with all of them. Since they're not going to attack us unprovoked and/or without warning, we don't really have to worry about it. All we've got to do is survive the first attack, and whichever country attacked us could - if we desired it - become a radioactive hole in the ground within a couple hours. You'd have to be Forest Gump stupid to start a war with the USA. Actually, you're right. That isn't a MAD policy since we'd still be standing at the end.

Let me guess... you voted for Bush?

[Enki]

Hmm, lets say Milwaukee is erased from the map by one of these warheads we have enough to retaliate against. Does turning a bunch of poor folks in the desert who had nothing to do with their governments radicalism make anyone feel better? Didn't think so.

You have to deal with the issue before Milwaukee is an afterthought. MAD was nuts enough with the Soviets, but at least both sides had enough to loose to ensure cooler heads prevailed. Not true anymore.

[Akumulator]

A nuclear strike would most like cause a domino effect. If we launch on any country it will only cause heightened tensions that would almost immediately result in them launching. Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Russia... you can not predict how exactly people will react, but I think one thing is for certain. If the USA is sending nukes anywhere, the countries even remotely close to that region will not just sit there and think everything'll be okay. It would be the beginning of the end.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Akumulator A nuclear strike would most like cause a domino effect. If we launch on any country it will only cause heightened tensions that would almost immediately result in them launching. Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Russia... you can not predict how exactly people will react, but I think one thing is for certain. If the USA is sending nukes anywhere, the countries even remotely close to that region will not just sit there and think everything'll be okay. It would be the beginning of the end.

Absolutely... and I think everyone realises that... which just goes to show that fear of Iran or North Korea having them is foolish. Unless an entire country decided to go for WACO status (as in a religious loonie farm) they are simply not going to use them. (IMHO - North Korea is much more of a threat than Iran, and niether are a great threat to be honest). In the real world (not the one which exists in Bush's paranoid government) people and governments simply do not want nuclear war, but they do not see why they should not have the capability of a deterent which their political critics and potential enemies do have.

Countries that want them, want them as a deterent to countries they don't trust. And whilst we have them it is duplicitous and elitist and politically unhealthy for us to dictate who can and cannot develope them.. as if we can 100% stop it in any case. Look at the drug war!

Countries like Iran want them to defend themselves from states they consider unstable (for example - Israel). They have every right to their opinions. We must get out of the mindset that the West is right. Because are so often not. Period. Iran, or North Korea, are not going to start a war with the US or anyone just for the hell of it, cos we all know we will all DIE!

A good example is Saddam and the SCUD attacks he launched on Israel way back in the first gulf war. Now, then he did have chemical weapons and the capability to put them in SCUDs. But he did not. Why? He is a Mad Dog, right? Well not that mad, cos he knew that would draw massive negative consequences for him, so he stuck with conventional warheads. Think about it.... Cos he is aparently the maddest most murderous SOB out there, according to BUSH.

(An aside here - Now I wonder how many people in the Pentagon wanted to Nuke Falluja. I bet it was a lot closer run than any of us care to think about.)

So, all this tends to lead us to the argument for global disarmament... but to date the US is still one of the greatest countries showing duplicity on this... Their developement now of missiles such as the 'Bunker Busters' and continuing developement of nuclear technology does not establish a common ground of trust with the rest of the world. (Nor does it conform to yet another set of agreements which the US is aparently exempt from on the world stage!) The rampant paranoia and propaganda against 'The axis of evil' and including Iran in this does not temper good relations. The critisism of the European handling of the Iran situation was also embarrassing and showed the current administration as the immature inept looney bin that it is. None of this is conducive to countries like Iran thinking, "Well heck the US are a straight down the line bunch of chaps and they have shown restraint in the past... Heck if they don't want us to have nukes we just won't heve them..."

If one has them all should have them. Fair?
But wouldn't it be better is no-one had them.
Based on the discussion so far we mostly seem to agree that no one is going to use them anyway.. No one would be that stupid? Right?!?!

Then we move on to the terrorist threat.. Which is a real and inevitable (IMHO) threat. I would not be suprised to wake up on any one day and hear of a major capital having been hit by a dirty bomb. Unfotunately we all know it will be in the US or UK. (Cheers for that one Blair.) But hey is having a nuclear arsenal really going to help you get a group of terrorists that are spread out alll over the world like a virus in coutries which neither support nor condone their actions? No. All it is going to do is make people feel better when you nuke some country which might have tenuous links to that organisation... 911?

So let's get rid of them. 'Cos the only reason the terrorists (may) have them is because of the cold war and it's aftermath.. yet another nuclear arms race.. US and Russia. Hmm.

The US comes up a lot in this doesn't it!!

[Warning - There is sarcasm in the next paragraph.]
And that brings us full circle to Bush letting Bin Laden run riot and invading Iraq... Now that really sorted out the 911 issue and has sure made the world a safer place... So based on the success of that why not kick the shit out of Iran too.....

[Dave]

Originally Posted by scratt Let me guess... you voted for Bush?

Oh I didn't say we *should* do that, in fact I would be strongly against such action. I was merely pointing out that we have the capacity.

[drewprops]

Yes, I agree with Scatt.
We should completely ignore the possibility that Iran is in the process of constructing intercontinental ballistic missiles; bad intelligence once, bad intelligence forever. Hm.

Hey, when did AI start sending their political stuff to our playground? I'm going to write a stern letter to someone.

[scratt]

I reckon if people are going to give negative reputation points they should at least have the decency to give a reason... You know who you are!!

Actually taking part in the debate rather than sneaking around in the background and issuing a little subversive kick is far less cowardly I think... Just my opinion though...

[c-choox]

scratt,

I agree wholeheartedly with you, but unfortunately game theory doesn't (remember John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind").

The problem is that everyone having nuclear weapons is the only stable state in the game.

If no-one has them, there is advantage to be gained in developing them. If someone else has them, there is a disadvantage which can be shed by developing them yourself.

International treaties like the Non-proliferation treaty try to make everyone agree not to have them, but there are incentives to cheat. So you need a policing regime, with satelites and sensors. And who owns all the satelites and sensors? Right!

The benefits of a peaceful world are there for everyone to see of course, but the problem is they are benefits to everyone, so they convey no strategic advantage...

rinse and repeat.

[scratt]

Well said. You are right of course.

But everyone should have them, not just the "elite".

I guess I am just an old hippy at heart though and still love the dream of getting rid altogether.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by scratt Well said. You are right of course. But everyone should have them, not just the "elite".

I disagree. I think only the USA should have nukes. Because then we could boss everyone else around even more than we do now. That would amuse me.


Normally I'm such a nice guy. I must be in a bad mood or something.