Current Events

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

ToxicAssets — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:44:41 GMT

Wheylous:

From my nuclear weapons article: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/nuclear-weapons-in-libertarianism/

- “Iran Poised To Build Bombs” (Sept 2003) [1]

- “Iran Only Months Away From Making Nuclear Bombs” (Jan 2006) [2]

- “Iran could have ability to build nuclear bomb by 2010, study warns” (Jan 2009) [3]

- “Goodspeed: Iran may be two months from bomb, two new studies say” (June 2011) [4]

- “Iran just months from N-bomb” (Sept 2011) [5]

[1] http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20030923&id=-LZQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lh8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3035,1706362

[2] http://realtruth.org/news/060106-001.html

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/4362989/Iran-could-have-a-nuclear-bomb-by-2010-study-warns.html

[4] http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/07/goodspeed-iran-may-be-two-months-from-bomb-two-new-studies-say/

[5] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/iran-just-months-from-n-bomb/story-e6frg6so-1226145909062

The use of midia by intelligence agencies for disinformation purposes aside, a nuclear program could theoretically be kept a few months away from developing actual nuclear bombs for many years, specially when there's no point in manufacturing an actual device if there's no imminent intention of deployment, either in a test or in a surprise attack.

A lot of countries are expected to be a "few months away" from developing their own nukes, including non threatening nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil.

That doesn't mean that in the next months they will unveil any warhead. It just means that in a scenario of acute geopolitical instability, where it would make sense for their governments to possess such weapons, they could make it in a short period of time.

To be fully nuclear requires more than the ability to assemble nuclear bombs. You need to develop a reliable delivery system, either through submarines, stealth bombers or ICBMs; and you may also want second strike capabilities and an extensive intelligence and counter-intelligence apparatus, and all of these things are very expensive to acquire and maintain.

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

SkepticalMetal — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:47:14 GMT

@ Kelvin Silva

It's not just in modern times - blaming any religion for violence is the same as blaming guns for violence. For example, Zen Buddhism is quite possibly the most peace-preaching pacifist religion/philosophy around, and yet during Japan's WWII era the Japanese government created a Zen establishment that interweaved Zen with the state by inserting Zen teachers who taught war and "putting down the filthy American animal" so as to prepare Zen students for fighting Americans. But regardless of the fact that the state has been the main corruptor of religion for it's own benefit, religion always gets pinned down as the enemy.

Ironically, this topic can be summed up with a quote from a prominant critic of religion (albeit a libertarian):

"All the state sees in an original idea is potential change." - H. L. Mencken

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Neodoxy — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 17:59:33 GMT

"In other words, they, the hated other, the enemy, are bad and we are good. Such a novel viewpoint."

In other words you're misrepresenting someone's viewpoint because you have no rebuttal or substantive response. I'm sure you oppose Nazism and communism just because they are the "hated other", you couldn't have a good reason like the fact that those ideologies are inherently warlike and crush economic prosperity.

Bring something intelligent to the table or don't post at all.

"- And how big businesses profit from war?

- And what kind/industry of businesses are those?"

Every business whose demand increases as a result of war profits from war. This includes arms industries, computer industries, aeronautics industries, and just about every other industry that is involved in producing military supplies from bullets to boots to instruction manuals. This isn't that hard to see. If I can get a multi-million government contract then why in the world wouldn't I do so?

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

LandJ — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:36:06 GMT

Can someone explain to me in simple words,

- How a war is profitable for government?

- And how big businesses profit from war?

- And what kind/industry of businesses are those?

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Marko — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:21:03 GMT

What do you think about the real case of Iran? Do you believe that US and others governments should interfere in order to prevent the use of nuclear weapons from Iran?

What do you answer to those who support such interventions because they believe that if we let Iran use nuclear weapons, then they may lauch a war on West countries with horrible consequences?

Please, justify your answers....Thank you all!

Please, justify your framing of the questions. Show that Iran is intended to acquire nuclear weapons. Show that if it is allowed to field nuclear weapons it will in fact do so. Show that nuclear armed Iran isn't a giant red herring not worth discussing in the frame you propose.

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Meistro — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 05:48:20 GMT

In other words, they, the hated other, the enemy, are bad and we are good. Such a novel viewpoint.

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Kelvin Silva — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 04:15:15 GMT

There are hardly any modern day christians that support the crusades. While it is true that in the medieval times, religions often clashed and many died, in the modern times, blaming religion for war is just absurd.

Many people also blame christians for things that politicians do because politicians assert themselves as christians. It disgusts me that they do....

Politicians only use the "christian" label to gain votes....

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Neodoxy — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 04:12:35 GMT

I am not part of this "we" of which you speak.

Islam directly condones the murder and forced conversion of those who have different religions. There is a distinct and permanent link between Islam, the state, and law which makes peace, freedom, and tolerance incompatible with Islamic dominance. I don't care what you "think", I am saying that any Muslim who is tolerant and not warlike is either inconsistent or engaging in active revisionism. I could probably read Marx or be a Marxist in such a way to support capitalism, but I would either be disingenuously interpreting the things that Marx said, or I would be being inconsistent with Marxist principles.

This is not to say that such Muslims do not exist, only that they are guilty of one of these two things. I am not surprised that many Muslims who live in the modern world turn their back on their real religion as well as their true heritage. Modern ideologies of tolerance and moderation, as well as the wonderful lifestyle that the liberal doctrines have bestowed upon mankind are both great reasons for Islam to rearrange itself, especially from those who are directly exposed to them. God is dead and if he's ever brought back it'll be from people like real Muslims or radical Christians plunging us back into the dark ages.

Christians have had the power for centuries now, but it's been a very long time since they have forced their religion on infidels by threat of death.

Finally, Christianity bases itself around a peace-preaching prophet who died a martyr and preached forgiveness, while Islam was founded by a theocratic warrior king. Considering how bloody Christianity's history of dominance was back when it was taken more seriously, I'd... hate to see what an Islamic regime would look like if the Muslims haven't watered down their own religion.

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Meistro — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 03:33:31 GMT

Both Calvin and Luther were in favour of converting people to their sects of christianity by the sword. Personally I do not think the Mohamadens are any more warlike than Christians or vice versa, the reason why we are more brutal towards them is because we have the power and they do not.

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Neodoxy — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 03:02:15 GMT

The only reason Muslims shouldn't kill infidels when they have the chance is because they are inconsistent with their own religion. The United States and Christians at least have the doctrine of forgiveness in the latter case, and the admission that they don't want to indiscriminately kill people in the former.

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Meistro — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:47:02 GMT

I've known many muslims and none have ever been in the slightest aggressive towards me. Once I blasphemed in front of a few of them and they asked me politely not to. On the other hand Christian? / atheist white people have many times committed aggression against me. And if you look on the global scale, in the last decade white people / christians / atheists? have murdered hundreds of thousands of moslims / atheists? / arabic people so I think if there's any real concern it's that white people / christians / atheists / barack obama are going to murder a bunch of moslims instead of the other way around, be it via nuclear weapons or what have you.

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Wheylous — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 02:00:22 GMT

I really wish my post could escape moderation...

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Neodoxy — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:13:59 GMT

You know, that's one of those ambiguous and unhelpful statements that don't really fly around here.

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

LandJ — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:06:14 GMT

Some claim that Iran may use nuclear weapons in aggression because they are extremists, fanatics muslims.

Re: Nuclear Weapons and Intervention

Kakugo — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 23:52:23 GMT

Not all governments openly "declare" owning nuclear weapons. Israel has been playing the ambiguity card for almost four decades now, South Africa actually had a number of Israeli-made weapons during the Apartheid Era and Brazil initiated a nuclear weapon program without fanfare, only to terminate it because of lack of funding.

Also, if you own nuclear weapons the problem is you also need a nuclear doctrine. Those things aren't just weapons of mass destruction: they are powerful bargaining chips. Short of starting throwing them around, you acquire them to sit at the negotiating table in a strong position. One of the reasons Pakistan has been treated like a whipping boy despite being a nuclear power is their doctrine is non-existant. Perwez Musharraf had the nukes but lacked all the ideological apparatus countries such as Israel and France have developed.

How do you deal with a nuclear-armed country? It all depends on the doctrine they developed. Example: it's pretty obvious that a hypothetical Iranian nuclear doctrine would be aimed at containing Israel, especially if Iran could develop a so-called second strike capability (the ability to launch a nuclear strike even if the country gets hit first: nuclear-armed submarines are the usual choice). But, as Pakistan proved, this is far from enough. Israel (and to a lesser degree France) has been known to very aggressively use their nuclear capability at the negotiating table. During the Yom Kippur War, Israel went on full nuclear alert and made sure the US knew about it. Operation Nickel Grass was authorized by Kissinger in a matter of hours. During the First Gulf War, Israeli officials made very sure both the US and the Arabs knew they were ready to obliterate Baghdad in case a single chemical-tipped missile hit Israel. I personally believe they would not have gone that far but deterrent wasn't the point: Saddam knew perfectly well about the Israeli nuclear arsenal. The point was forcing the Arabs and the Americans into giving Israel ridicously generous conditions for "not interferring". It worked.

There's no taylor-made solution for dealing with nuclear armed States.

About Iran... I am pretty sure if that country didn't feel a knife against its throat things would go much smoother for all parts involved. Iran has agreed to inspections from AIEA to prove they aren't building nuclear weapons. Of course there are many who say they can do so in secret, but there's a catch. You cannot build nuclear weapons in secret. The facilities needed to manufacture them leave a very distinct "footprint" analysts know how to read. When Israel was building Dimona, the CIA kept the site under close surveillance by means of U2 overflights. HUMINT wasn't successful in infiltrating the plant but there was no need for it: the analysts knew perfectly well what was going on. With North Korea (DPRK), it was even easier: the CIA and the Mossad (which maintains an extensive network in Central Asia) knew DPRK officials were in talks with the infamous Khan Network for a nuclear program. Iran is kept in the crosshair of reconnaisance satellites and has been overflown by RQ170 drones (whose scope was prolonged surveillance of nuclear sites in "rogue nations" with limited AA capabilities). By now proofs should have surfaced, if they exist. Of course there's always the possibility the US know such a program exists and are doing nothing about it. After all they did nothing to stop Israel and DPRK, but those two are different stories.

And about interventionists... Israel has the means to threaten Russia, Europe and, since the new Jericho 4 ICBM went into service, the Continental US as well. Israel has threatened multiple times to attack Russia and set the Middle East ablaze. Israel has been using nuclear blackmail to get what she wants for at least four decades now. Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard stole US nuclear secrets, part of which were sold to the USSR. Yet nobody has nothing to object about Israeli nuclear weapons, perhaps because effective propaganda makes people think Israeli leaders are wise and cautious while Iranian leaders are religious fanatics ready to take the whole world down with them. They aren't: a nuclear armed Iran cannot be worse than a nuclear armed Israel.