|
InvisibleBlack -> RE: Neocons Worried That Sanctions Might Not Kill Enough Innocent Iranians (1/1/2010 12:12:34 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
But seriously, the problem with punishing IRAN when they use "the bomb" will be, once they use it they'll probably use far more than just one - and think of how horrific that day will be.
And then how will we then punish them, with sanctions? Or by killing more millions of innocents in Tehran and Mashhad?
They are going to have a fuck of a time right now with 'more than one' first off, they have the resources that can produce one small one a year, now I know you think ALL Islamists are Zealots, but the engineering that could conceivably take place in Iran right now to launch it is a wood and metal catapult....they have almost nil in rocketry, having put one sattelite in orbit in February this year (on the backs of our old buddies the russians) and the commies (lol, even the commies are not commies anymore) are not likely with our latest agreements on sanctions to allow them needful resources. so, at best we have about 10 years before threat is turned to puce or muave or whatever on the Homeland Security Color wheel, at least in terms of targeting locally, and probably another 10 to do anything meaningful to the US. The time to repair the roof is while the sun is shining, however, and remembering that this is 'threat' is in Russias and Chinas ACTUAL backyard long before ours (cuz, Israel is on their own there, and will take action long before we need to to cut the hemmoroid out) since they are far more threatened than us.......
Anyway.......nah......we got way fucking closer problems to bump on the priority list than Iran, but I am in no wise saying we shouldnt be actively involved there in the issues with our business partner China, and our good friend (when it behooves them to be so) Russia.
Me
The real bottom line is this ... they (this is the ubiquitous THEY as in "THEM"(you know who I mean)) aren't worried at all about Iran actually attacking someone with a nuclear weapon. The area we're talking about is so small and their nuclear technology is fairly primitive (which means their bomb would be pretty dirty) and so the fallout and collateral effects of nuking, oh, say Israel, would result in radioactive effects across a goodly chunk of the Arab world.
Nothing like morning fallout in Mecca to put a damper on your jihad.
The problem is that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, even a small one, even if their delivery system is driving it around on a truck, suddenly the PTB (that's Powers That Be) can't just throw their weight around the Middle East however they want. Suddenly someone from Iran can say "stop, that's enough or else" and have to actually be listened to. Suddenly all those pipelines (like the 4 billion dollar one that runs from Azerbijhan through Georgia and Turkey to Ceyhan (which, btw was commissioned in 2002 and finished in 2005 - gee, right in the midst of the Iraq war)) are vulnerable hostages and foreign governments won't have a free hand and carte blanche to play realpolitik in the Middle East anymore. The option of invading Iran and toppling their government (like we did in Iraq or the British did in 1941 in Iran) would be off the table and suddenly Iran would actually have to be listened to and taken seriously.
This has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of realistic atomic threat and everything to do with the balance of power in the Middle East. The real debate is over whether or not it's worth expanding the current theater of war to a third front to prevent this.
|
|
|
|
