Labs Compete to Build New Nuclear Bomb 949
An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that two labs are currently competing to design the first new nuclear bomb in twenty years. The new bomb was approved as a part of the 2006 defense spending bill. From the article: 'Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.'"
Remember Iran: (Score:1, Insightful)
Great job America... (Score:3, Insightful)
Reducing Stockpile (Score:0, Insightful)
Oh wait, that's not the goal, they're just lieing through their teeth. I forgot.
-
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:2, Insightful)
The US is a nation that does not keep its dominance through diplomacy and exports, but instead by force. We have an awesome military, and if things keep up, that's all we'll have going for us (which is not that great of a thing by itself).
Re:Great job America... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I just choked up a lung.
fission to fusion (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple - if you have the bomb, you're safe. If you don't have it, you'll be invaded. Given that the US seems fully ready to use military force in the middle east, what possible reason would Iran have for NOT building nukes? Nukes make a wonderful deterrant after all.
I'm not saying I agree with them, but they're certainly being logical. Given a choice between, say, a non-agression pact and a stockpile of nuclear weapons that can make the other guy think twice about declaring war, I'd take the nukes. Assurances that you won't be invaded are just words on paper after all.
Deterrent? Who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is what I *think* the US is trying to do:
1) Strengthen it's military power as well as the fear and respect it generates
2) Use this military power (as well as its expertise with finance) to obtain new resources as well as improve the result of bargaining situations
3) ???
4) Profit!
Developing new weapons, especially those designed to inflict maximum civilian damage, pretty much follows the US plan. I wonder if China will actually take the bait of going into an arms race with the US, given that it will be ahead economically in a decade or less.
Oh well, since Australia is both an ally to the US and China (uranium deal), I think we will be fine...
Atoms for peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So now it's official (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great job America... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see why people would want them to get rid of all nukes, and not just some, but you'd never convince a military-minded government to do that. It's probably better that they keep a smaller, less destructive arsenal purely as a deterant.
And I don't see why this article would neccesarily mean more nuclear weapons yet. If the labs develop better bombs, and those bombs are built while the old ones are taken out of storage and dismantled, that at least accomplishes something (since old bombs lying around in storage are probably more of a safety hazard than new ones). Plus, there is no guarantee that the next administration will be as military focused as the current one, so even if they do build a better moustrap, it may not be deployed.
As long as the total number of nukes is decreasing, there is progess.
Re:Great job America... (Score:2, Insightful)
The point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line: much less plutonium lying around, smaller yields, cleaner designs, and reduced risk profile. They are not expanding the arsenal, just cleaning it up. Since the US is going to have nukes regardless, I do not have a problem with this.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly.
Is there anyone left on Earth who trusts anything the US Government has to say? You're more likely to get the truth from a damp sock. And usually more intelligent reasoning.
Shitdrummer.
Re:Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:2, Insightful)
One Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:2, Insightful)
For one, the US has had "the bomb" for over 60 years, and developed/improved it in response to actual threats (ostensibly from Japan, but primarily from the Soviets). There is no comparable threat to Iran (yeah, you might say the US, but the only thing Iran has to worry about from the US is caused directly by their nuclear weapon ambitions in the first place).
For another, the US maintains its stockpiles of nuclear weapons solely to serve as a deterrent against other nations, while Iran's leadership has publicly and repeatedly declared that Israel should not exist as a state and has funded terrorist acts in order to remove it - it may very well use nuclear weapons in a first-strike effort against Israel, and even the threat of this occurring destabilizes the Middle East further than it already is.
And for a third, Iran's government maintains a stranglehold over its people - the people are fairly Westernized as the region goes, and they are interested in legitimate democracy. If Iran's government gains control of WMDs with significant range, they will ensure that other nations can never again interfere with their oppression of their own people.
Finally, the stability of the US government is much greater [fundforpeace.org] than that of Iran. The chances of Iran's government collapsing at some point in the future, relegating their nuclear weapons to whoever can get their hands on them first, are significant. It is thus in the interest of everyone (especially in that region, but potentially around the world) for Iran not to acquire nuclear weapons.
Besides all this, if developing a new nuclear weapon design allows the US to decrease its active stockpile of warheads, thereby reducing the cost of maintaining those weapons, decreasing the hazard their existence presents (aside from their use, of course), and generally reducing the overwhelming overkill the stockpile represents, isn't that a good thing?
Re:I wonder who is the target (Score:4, Insightful)
p.s. And before the knee jerkers decide to blame Bush for this, realize that these bombs were there under Carter and Clinton, and would still be here even if Gore and Kerry had won.
Re:I wonder who is the target (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:2, Insightful)
I realize that nuclear weapons are a whole different class of weapons then any we have ever had before, but that doesn't change the fact that our current arsenal of weapons is actually deteriorating rapidly and possible prone to an attack that could detonate them. If we can replace those nukes with safer ones that don't have these problems then that is better what we currently have and while it may not be quite a step in the right direction, it isn't a step in the wrong direction either.
Re:Strangelove (Score:2, Insightful)
If you need a comparison, check all the 1984 references then...it's even older but still apt.
Re:Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:4, Insightful)
I would prefer no nuclear weapons, but unfortunately, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, I don't see any practical way out. A total global disarmament just doesn't seem likely, and is possibly hopelessly idealistic. I think history shows too many times that those without a strategic deterrence are the conquerred ones, and at times, they are are ones that get massacred.
Van dam Nukes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that you are exaggerating the differences. Another view is that Isreal and Iran are locked in a regional power struggle. Isreal has a very capable nuclear capability (uses submarines) so a first strike against Isreal is impractical. Isreal would love to see Iran gone as would the US. Their constituency is a little more sophisticated and hence their rhetoric is more refined. But the underlying message is the same.
Also, for months there has been talk in the US of "bunker busting" nukes to be used against Iran's facilities, and knowing this the administration states that "All options" are on the table. So do not think that the stockpiles are simply a "benign" deterrent against attack on the US. This was clearly a provocation. Like the "we'll play poker with you if you show us your cards" deal Ms. Rice offered reciently. Personally, I think that this is meant to isolate Iran and solidify European/US resolve for war down the road.
Iran is a lothesome regime, but the US and Isreal are not the exactly benign innocent lamb-kittens.
Cheers,
-b
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
The most significant real issue is stability, but we've already had the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had more nuclear weapons than Iran could build in two centuries. So the horse is several leagues from that particular barn, though I agree it's in the world's best interests to keep as few nuclear horses from running around as possible.
But at the end of the day, Iran would be crazy NOT to develop nuclear weapons, assuming they look after their own best interests. An American policy that doesn't recognize this and try to overcome it is doomed to failure -- we need a HUGE carrot or a gigantic stick to stop them, and we don't seem willing to do the former or capable (for several more years) of the latter.
Boobs & Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
SNAFU
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no question that the US is stable (as is China, and the USSR back in the day). Nor is there any question that Iran is a dangerous theocracy. Under no circumstances am I defending Iran, or attacking the US.
However, the US has already acted with military force in the middle east, on the pretext of preventing a dictator from aquiring weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, America considers Iran to be its enemy, both geopolitically and ideologically.
Given those two facts, why would Iran give up its nuclear program? Even if the country was run by secular moderates, they'd have no logical reason to get rid of their nukes, and every reason to want to keep them as insurance. The fact that the people in power there are neither logical nor moderate just makes it even harder to convince them. Even a treaty assuring the Iranians that they will not be invaded is not enough - treaties are just words on paper, whereas nukes are a tangible and frightingly effective deterrant.
Like I said, I'm not defending them, only their logic.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
And realistically, those are examples of war-by-proxy; minor conflicts fought between two major powers by way of of a third party government. The US and the USSR didn't fight each other directly, and the reason is nuclear deterrance.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an either/or proposition -- voting out the Amerikkkan fascists in November* doesn't mean that they'll be replaced by a bunch of Iranian mullahs.
* Difficult to do, I admit, when the Democrats respond exactly the same as the Republicans 98% of the time.
Re:Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, Iraq.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:1, Insightful)
If, say, Haliburton made a profit from the war (you know, the whole being given huge numbers of contracts in post-war Iraq thing), and gained control over a signifigant oil stockpile, then they benefited from the war. If that was the point of going to war in the first place (which is what the left alleges, specifically WRT president, er I mean VP, Cheney), then the US did indeed "go to war for oil", it just didn't intend to use that oil for the benefit of it's citizenry.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, at this point it's eminently clear that Iraq was invaded because we knew they didn't have WMD's. If they'd had nukes (not sure if chemicals or biologicals would have stopped us, although they sure could have made things rough) we'd still be saber-rattling.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, look at India and Pakistan. Nukes have worked really well as a deterrent.
Ever since both have gotten nukes, they've gotten close to war and just had to back off until the tempers cooled off because of MAD.
Now, they're working towards being friends instead of enemies.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Iran is full of religious zelots.
So is the USA.
2. Mamood Ahmadi-Najad (president of Iran) denies the holocust happend and threatend Israel to be "wiped off the map"
They just threatened. The USA actually attacked Iraq.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You've swallowed it (Score:3, Insightful)
The old bombs have a lifespan. That isn't doublespeak - it's FACT. New bombs will have to be built if we wish to keep them as a deterrant - and convincing politicians and generals that there is no need for such a deterrant is futile, so that's right out. The US no longer has bomb production capability, so the new bombs will need to be made in new factories. And they might as well update the elderly designs while they're at it, since there's no reason to build a new factory to build from bomb designes that are 20+ years old.
Nothing about this is illogical, or contrary to known facts.
The only way developing new bombs will lead to more bombs total if:
A) The new bombs are deployed before the old ones expire (unlikely)
Or
B) More new bombs are built than currently exist. This is expensive, and probably unecesarry, given that nukes aren't needed in massive numbers. A hundred might be enough of a deterrant.
What possible need do they have for doublespeak? The only possible point you might argue is that we shouldn't be building new bombs at all, and that we should give up the ones we have. Good luck convincing the rest of the world about that though.
Why can't we just go conventional? (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:2, Insightful)
You obviously dont know what the US did BEFORE 9/11 in Afghanistan & other places . [ Read - Taliban ]
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:2, Insightful)
Force is a very valid way of coercing nations' behavior. If the U.S. had no military, a rival nation could just march in. Or they could stockpile nukes in Cuba in launching range of our major cities and extort U.S. citizens.
It's important for the U.S. to have a military, and it's also important that other nations know we are willing to use it. Remember, there are no world police.
Negotiations don't really accomplish much if the nations have mutually exclusive interests. If we negotiate with Britain or Canada, it works out great because most of what we want is the same. But negotiating without a backing of force is useless against places like North Korea or Iran. There's no common ground.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:1, Insightful)
Um, see the insane price of oil? You realise that the US has the largest fossil fuel deposits on earth on its own soil? Its just good policy to use everybody else's first, driving up prces in the process to maximise domestic profits.
High oil prices are good for the US.
Not that it has anything to do with Iraq though, that's all about trying to be a hero in some sick way by following in Daddy's footsteps.
The US is far from responsible and stable. Its consumption and blind ignorance is sure to kill us all. But hey, we can drive our SUVs and watch Paris Hilton on the TV and internet porn.
This species has amused itself to death [rogerwatersonline.com]
Amusing Ourselves to Death [wikipedia.org] (hmmm... Slashdot...
Re:Deterrent? Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has wanted to remove Iran's government ever since it came to power. Relationships have historically been bad, originally because the US supported the previous dictator, the Shah of Persia, over the popular and democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh [wikipedia.org]. Iraq was not threatening to build WMDs, but this did not stop Bush.
I think I heard that the Bush administration planned devising a smaller nuclear bomb that could be used in the battlefield or for bunker busting [wikipedia.org]. It is obvious, since there is no longer a nuclear-capable adversary (except North Korea, which is left alone just because of that).
Israel usually denies, but everybody knows they have extensive nuclear capability and that they can deliver it to Iran if they wanted. Attacking a nuclear power far stronger than you are, which is tightly allied to the major nuclear power on the planet with whom you don't have a good relationship to begin with is such a stupid thing not ever Ahmadinejad can possibly contemplate that. On the other hand, nukes have caused the longest period of peace in Europe in centuries, the cold war. If anything, nukes have a stabilising effect as they effectively make it impossible to wage a war in which a side gains something.
No doubt about that, but an invasion did not help in Iraq. People were killed before, now they are still killed—only now it's more like random violence. In addition, the country became a gigantic terrorist training ground, so if peace were to come to Iraq we would have a few thousands terrorists on the loose. Want to do it over in Iran?
Sure. But the same can be said about North Korea and especially Pakistan, home to most Talibans. Pakistan is also a dictatorship, but an "aligned" one. In your source about state instability, Iran is 53rd, Pakistan is 9th. If you have to be seriously worried about terrorists getting nukes, that's the most likely place to look at.
If it costs less I find it more likely that the government will keep funding constant and just have more warheads. The weapon industry will surely lobby not to cut into their profits, and they have influence. "You don't want to give the terrorists a sign of weakness by reducing our military expenditure, do you?"
Re:Bear in mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also remember that the only way IRAN can credibly deter others from using nuclear weapons is to convince those others that IRAN is willing and able to strike back. Building new weapons is part of that plan.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
When the US stops making the world a worse place to live in for all non-US citizens, we'll stop criticizing your politics.
And tell me, how exactly would you know what other countries' citizens are focused on ? I assume you visited each and every one of those countries ? Or at least have access to their mainstream media ? You do speak other languages, right ?
What the US should be focused on internally is educating its people. Stop this celebration of stupidity. You don't need a president you would like to have a beer with, you need a president who can run the @#!? country !
Teach people that issues are almost never black and white.
Teach them that being criticial on human rights abuses by the US does NOT mean you can't also be critical on human rights abuses by other countries.
But hey, making "France surrenders" jokes is much more fun, right ?
Re:Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:5, Insightful)
There is not only the choice between safe and non-safe nukes. There is also the choice of no nukes at all. Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually pledged that he would be happy to give up Iran's nuclear ambitions if there was a genuine commitment of all nations with nuclear weapons to disarm. Now, this is a dishonest offer, because he knows that it is not going to happen. But what better way to, literally and figuratively, disarm Iran than taking him up on it? What is the use of nuclear weapons in this world? Who are you going to nuke? "The terrorists"?
If you look at the comments in this thread, you will find that America has no moral leadership anymore whatsoever. It's gone. Note that this is an America-based forum. Don't even try to suggest any kind of moral leadership of the United States in a European context. You will quickly hear: Iraq civil war. Abu Ghraib. Secret CIA prisons. Guantanomo. Police state. Religious fanaticism. Violation of international treaties. And so on, and so forth. What's the last moral defense against an undeniably terrible regime like Iran or the PRC? Democracy? Bullshit. Hardly anybody outside the US takes this so-called democracy seriously anymore. We are talking about an electoral system which tolerates the candidate in an election running the election, legally. Third world countries have more refined democratic systems than the US.
It's time to stop using false dichotomies and poorly constructed slippery slope arguments. "We can have safe nuclear bombs, or unsafe ones!" "We can invade countries, or let terrorists kill us!" "If we let the evil homosexuals marry, goats and chickens will be next!" "We must scare teenagers so they won't have sex and get pregnant!" "We must lock up 2 million people so there won't be criminals in the streets!" What scares me the most is that there are a lot of people who actually believe that.
High Oil Prices (Score:1, Insightful)
Interestingly, the people who would benefit from high oil prices are many of the same people who support (or make up) the current American administration. If the current administration weren't so utterly damned incompetent, it wouldn't be hard to argue that it chose to invade Iraq precisely to drive up oil prices. (Historically any tension or upheaval in the Middle East has driven up oil prices.) It should have been clear ahead of time that this wouldn't be a surprising outcome.
Granted, there are additional global economic effects that are also impacting the price of oil: increasing demand from emerging markets; limited supplies; and local production/delivery disruptions unrelated to the idiotic invasion of Iraq. Still, unrest in the Middle East will do more than its fair share keeping prices high.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
The Arab world (and indeed most of the third world including Africa, Indochina and South America) hate the Western powers not because they are democratic, but because they are exploitative fascists. The west is always pulling stunts like this [democracyctr.org] which is why there are so many "terrorists" out there trying to bring the west down. The moment the US stops trying to act like a global dictator the sooner crazy lunatics will stop flying planes into US buildings.
Get a grip. And get rid of that huge gas guzzling 4x4 you use to haul your collection of shotguns around in.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference between Iran wanting to build a new nuclear weapon and the US wanting to build a new nuclear weapon is vastly significant in my opinion. I think it's light years away from a, "do what we say, not what we do" situation. The US *currently* possess a nuclear weapons capability, and it has for over half a century, while Iran -- we hope -- doesn't yet have the means to produce a destructive nuclear device.
At this point, any new nuclear weapons program in the US will do little more than refine existing US nuclear capabilities. It likely won't increase the number of nuclear weapons in the US stockpile, nor will it increase the yield of the average nuclear weapon. The program seems geared towards producing a new mainstay weapon for the US arsenal that's easier to maintain than what the US has right now.
The DOE has a brief document [doe.gov] explaining why the US needs a new nuclear weapon. Again, the prime reason behind the initiative seems to be a maintenance issue, not a military need. Considering that the US nuclear weapons program, in its heyday, produced gems like the "Atomic Annie" [wikipedia.org] mobile artillery piece, as well as the man-portable Davy Crockett [wikipedia.org] nuclear rifle, the current initiative seems mild in comparison. I think it's a stretch to presume that the Iranians should get any moral satisfaction, or a break in the on-going negotiations, simply because US officials see a need to modernize the nation's current Cold War-era nuclear weapons stockpile.
Re:So now it's official (Score:4, Insightful)
>others, and yet, it may very well be minor compared to what we
>are doing in gitmo
What, pray tell, COULD we be doing to people that would make sawing off a man's head with a knife "minor"?!
Are you fucking KIDDING me?
I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and say there's no way you've actually seen the Berg video. Look it up, then come back here and tell me that a guard wiping his ass with the Koran is staggeringly brutal and horrible compared to that.
For fuck's sake.
-l
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh right, the US ignored the UN and went ahead on the war with Iraq anyway, so we can ignore the fact that the UN exists now.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
This behaviour is certainly not exclusive to Americans, it's just that's it's so incredibly obvious in their case.
I think it is not so much that it is more obvious, particularly (I can't think of the last time any nation didn't act in a manner that didn't stink to high heaven of unenlightened self-interest, nor can I think of any people or nation who hasn't had similar lapses of taste or sense as Redneck [tm] Americans). I think rather it is problematic because it matters more. Simply, when the next-door neighbor is a jackass, it isn't that big a deal...unless he's got fistfuls of dollars and 'guns, lots of guns'. Similarly, if Liechtenstein were as assholey as the US, nobody would particularly care.
This, incidentally, is why it is perfectly reasonable for people who are not Americans (disclaimer, I am an American) to take a great interest in, and criticize, US policy: it affects their lives, sometimes in ways more profound than the actions of their own governments (Think, in particular, Columbia, though there are other obvious examples). I do not think it appropriate to deny the legitimacy of the complaints of people who are aggreived by the actions of a neighbor.
Iran and USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%
2. Breakdown of USA's Religions:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
3. I would hardly say that the replacment of Iraq's then-current government and military could be considered wiping the country off the map. In contrast, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's made statements that Israel is a stain in the Islamic world and should be wiped off the map. Mahmoud was also a known torturer during his days with the OSU. The last time I checked, the most torturous thing Bush did was share his bad grammar with the world.
No military or half the worlds military? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, the states need a military to defend itself from 'rival nations marching in'. However, does the US expect half the world to come marching in? Because last I checked, the US military budget is half of the annual spendings on defense worldwide. Yes, that's right folks, the US spends half of all the money spent on defense. Also, 80% of the increase in military spending was due to the US last year. ( see for instance http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spen
I hate to break the news to you, but the US does not have a defensive army. You have a mostly offensive army which is basically strong enough to take on the rest of the world.
"Remember, there are no world police."
Yes there is. It's the states. Although police implies a force controlled by some agreed upon laws, and without it's own interests. This is not the case. The police here is governend by _your_ laws, and guided by _your_ interests, with a guiding principle of fear, feeded by _your_ government because some fscking Saudi Arab made up some so-called global terrorist group which is _absolutely_ no threat to the imperialist empire the states have become.
Re:Bear in mind... (Score:1, Insightful)
Also remember that the only way RUSSIA can credibly deter others from using nuclear weapons is to convince those others that RUSSIA is willing and able to strike back. Building new weapons is part of that plan.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a phrase, entangling alliances. Sure, you may have a military made up of mounties and pop-guns, but England doesn't, nor the rest of NATO, and one NATO member invading another on any pretext would begin the quickest and most devastating political destabilization in world history.
And of course there's the fact that you kicked our ass the last time we invaded.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
He got the date wrong. Look it up [google.co.uk] if you want. Operation Ajax [wikipedia.org], 1953. It's not exactly a secret or anything, however they don't teach it in school and I don't think the movie is out yet. This is one of the cornerstones of why some islamists have issues with the USA.
And it wasn't a popular revolution. Popular revolutions by definition do not involve outside funding and state-sponsored terrorist campaigns.
The overthrowing of a democratically elected government in 1953 Iran was the first of MANY such operations. The US has overthrown more democracies that it has "created". It's all about the magical word..."socialist". Elect one of them and you are Fuxored.
Threatening to build nuclear weapons in 5 years isn't a normal reaction from those who are afraid of an imminent threat.
Iran is making no such threat. We are the ones talking of them building nukes in five years, not them.
So it looks like another war might be neccesary after all. You figured they'd have learned from Iraq's example, but common sense seems to be in short supply in the middle east.
another? Which previous war was also "neccesary". This I can't wait to hear...
Common sense? You clearly haven't been following the news. Numerous leaked memos and whistle-blowers have come forward to prove that the Iraq invasion was going to proceed regardless of any diplomacy. Any "diplomacy" you saw was to placate YOU and the international community. The PNAC have been planing that one since 1997 [newamericancentury.org]. These plans involve using Iraq as a gateway to the middle east. Irans recent nuclear sabre-rattling has nothing to do with the fact that the PNAC has their sights on them. They've had their crosshairs aimed for several years, they are just looking for a justification to do it now.
Often I wonder how great nations allow bad things to happen. How populations can turn a blind eye to what is going on in their name. Your ignorance has helped me understand this problem greatly. Thank you, thank you very much.
Re:No military or half the worlds military? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that, but according to these figures, the amount the US spends is half of their own discretionary spending budget [deviantart.com] on warfare.
Eisenhower touched on this in his leaving speach. He was concerned that WW2 had set in motion a new wave of US industry; weaponry. He believed that it had the potential to corrupt the country. He was essentially right; the arms industry is one of the most influential industries around now.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever hear of a dirty cop?
It must be great to know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Non Proliferation treaty (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I know this is not likely to happen, but it does gall me to see the US (And the UK for that matter) ignoring their treaty obligations, and then getting righteous over how Iran may be failing it's Non-Proliferation duties.
Take My Gun When You Pick Up Yours (Score:5, Insightful)
Answer me this. If China was to launch an assault on Taiwan tomorrow, would Europe run to the defense of a fellow democracy? Of course not. The only friend Taiwan could expect to come to its aid would be the big evil US. The US would park a battle fleet off the coat of Taiwan, drop a few thousand marines on the shore, and start sinking anything that tried to cross the channel despite the fact that it would be rumbling with the most populace nation in the world off of its own coast.
Europe has merrily thrown the defense of democracies to the wind and has actually tried to sell China weapons for which it could use to attack Taiwan despite pleading from the US not to. Europe has not entered into any sort of defense pact to defend Taiwan as the US has. Europe has put their economic prosperity and safety above defending fellow democracies.
When Europe can unite and show a willingness to strap on their boots and go kick some ass for democracy, I would be more then happy to see the US put down its arms and call it a centaury. I don't see that happening. The only time Europe comes out guns blazing is when it has to do with one of their former colonies or the US is leading the charge and carrying over half of the load. As long as the US is the only nation swinging its weight, you can expect the US to have a hefty supply of nukes to keep the people it pisses off at bay.
Personally, I think that the South Park guys sum up the argument for the good that the US provides to the world pretty eloquently in Team America, World's Police.
We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!
Re:I hope I'm not over simplifying here but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
Now you tell me how that "matters more". It has nothing to do with which action is more important, or more harmful. People around the world simply take pleasure in ragging on the Americans. It's like the way Americans used to talk about blacks back in the 50's. "Damn n***rs causing all our problems. It's their fault wer don't have jobs. Uneducated savages. They keep murdering people. Criminals.".
Every culture, every country, needs someone to demonize. Most of the world has picked the USA to fill that role. The only unusual thing here is that most Americans have picked their own government to play that role for them.
Re:Old hat (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok - I'll play.
So by "Nation A", you would mean America, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, and possibly North Korea.
And by "Nation B", you would mean Saudi Arabia, Norway, Iran, Venuzuela, UAE, Kuwait, Nigeria, Mexico.
Russia doesn't fit into either (it's a large oil exporter and has nukes).
I think you might have oversimplified this to a point where it loses all validity.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:2, Insightful)
Relativism on the Iran issue (Score:3, Insightful)
So is the USA.
When was the last time a US citizen was put to death for practicing the wrong religion? Your tendency toward relativism and moral equivalence have clouded your judgement.
They just threatened. The USA actually attacked Iraq.
Do you believe the US is not trying to rebuild Iraq and institute stable, lawful government in Iraq? Do you contend that the US is systematically plundering that country? Ahmadinejad's comments are pure malice, the fantasy of a homicidal madman who wants to kill Jews because they are Jews. If I were a Jew I would take the threat deadly seriously. Why Persian's are so obscessed by an Arab/Jewish conflict is hard to say. My guess is it distracts from the utter failure and depravity of Iran's mullahcracy.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)
The genie cannot be confined back in its bottle, therefore if there's going to be nukes, America should have the most and the best.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
lol, very true! When it comes to messing up the middle east, you guys learned from the best! (us)
If that's the way you see it, you have SERIOUSLY misunderstood geo-politics in the 20th century my friend. The US hasn't been an expansionist nation in centuries.
It depends on how you define expansionist. For the soviets it was making the USSR itself bigger. For the west it was establishing "democratic" client states. Most of the wests client states were essentially puppet regimes, with malable leadership often helped to power by ourselves.
It really comes down to this; you get the USSR and NATO fighting over places like Afganistan, Sudan, Turkey etc all for ultimate strategic gain. The semantics were different but it's the same end-goal. With Communism, you want state-managed resources, so you need a central coverment. Client states under the west can operate autonomously, but get support in various other guises such as trade, military deployments (great deterant to invaders) and so on.
Otherwise we'd now have the United Capitalist Federation of America, with colonies spread all over the globe.
Which is essentially what we have. There are numerous states left over from the cold war where they aren't exactly colonies but go beyond simple allies. It's like the Cuban revolution; prior to that Cuba was a US client state. That's about as much of a "Capitalist Federation" as you would get, but in many ways its the same thing. We're now 50 years on and many of these client states have changed drastically, so it's hard to think of specific examples.
Could have made the same argument in Bosnia after 3 years. Or South Korea. Or Germany for that matter. Stop getting your panties in a bunch; these things take time.
I'm not so sure...Iraq is quite different. Bosnia at least was part of a real country (AFAIK). Iraq on the other hand is an artificial country whose borders were drawn up while the ignoring centuries-old conflicts that shaped Persia. I'm not convinced that it could ever work as a country without someone like Saddam at the helm. Some sort of civil dispute leading to a Bosnia-style split is inevitable if you ask me. A friend of mine who teaches politics suggests that the election system in Iraq was drawn up in a way that this would be compatible with (and may even encourage), but I'm out of my depth on those discussions.
Maybe when you're not fighting religious fanatics.
Who isn't these days? Bush mentions God in almost every speach and he has gone on record saying that God told him to invade Iraq. The Chinese and anti-religion to the point of it being a religion itself! The Israeli's believe they have a religious/ethnic right to own that piece of the middle east. The Islamists see our culture as abhorent and fight any signs of it near them, and they are willing to die to do this. We're left with the Buddists and I'm sure a few of them want to create their own "King James" edition, removing the non-violence ideals! ;-)
Do you want to stop most war? Disprove the existance of God beyond all doubt and argument. That will be a glorious day for humanity.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does that make it any more right for the US (the only country with a historical record of dropping nuclear weapons on civilians) to develop nuclear weapons? If the US wants other countries to avoid building nukes it should damned well be setting an example by *decomissioning* it's stockpile rather than building new weapons to go on it, whether or not those new weapons are better than the ones they are replacing.
The US has got to be about the most hypocritical nation on the planet at the moment, and Bush is probably a much bigger threat to world peace than Iran and Iraq put together. "Bombs are bad - if you build a bomb we'll bomb you because we're the only people who should be allowed to have bombs".
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather, in an odd (and tragic) way I think that the lack of WMDs actually proves that the administration really believed they were there. If they were really corrupt enough to build a war on a lie, why not go the extra half-mile and plant the evidence as well? Incompetence - yes, but a knowing lie? I djust deon't make sense when you think it through...
Re:No military or half the worlds military? (Score:3, Insightful)
You could be making just as good money building more useful stuff. Except, of course, there arent any state funds for the more useful stuff because they're used for military stuff.
Dont kid yourself, excessive military industry is a net loss for the citizens and the economy as a whole; like with any other artificial transfer of funds the jobs and resources gained in one sector are lost in other sectors, and the non-competetive output is usually not a net wealth creation within the economy. Instead of an automotive worker and a car, or a construction worker and a house, you get a missile builder and a missile.
what about non-proliferation (Score:3, Insightful)
Wasn't the whole point of the non-proliferation treaty for non-nuclear states to remain that way, and in exchange the nuclear states would dispose of their nuclear arsenals over time?
The policy of developing new nukular weapons seems an outright betrayal of that treaty. If one signatory openly disregards the treaty, how can we in good conscience criticize another nation for threatening to withdraw from the treaty.
I'm just saying...
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a novel idea. Why don't we all stop trying to identify so much with individual nations and start trying to identify with causes we all believe in. Oh wait you probably don't believe that Americans have the same basic set of morals that you do right? All of us Americans just want to bomb out the rest of the world and knock France of their high horse huh?
Sheesh and to think you actually thought you had some sort of point with your sweeping generalizations about Americans.
Re:So now it's official (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called "neo-liberal hysteria". The usual gambit is to say that the West is morally equivalent to the Middle East. This is followed by wringing of hands and shedding of tears.
Re:No military or half the worlds military? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
But there is, so far, no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. And nobody, not even Iran, is arguing that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a good thing. The point of contention relates to nuclear power plants. Under 1968's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nations have the right to develop nuclear power [wikipedia.org], including enriching their own uranium.
What we (that is, the U.S., Germany, and a few other nations) are trying to block is Iran's uranium enrichment program, instead insisting that they purchase enriched uranium from us.
Iran, however, does not want to be dependent on foreign nations for their energy needs, as they are familiar with where that sort of thing leads.
They have in the past said they'd allow inspectors from the IAEA, but that giving up their enrichment program altogether was non-negotiable.
We have refused to negotiate on allowing enrichment, even overseen by IAEA inspectors. So, because of our complete unwillingness to negotiate, they now have an on-going, and uninspected, uranium enrichment program going on.
And, if they've learned anything from the lessons of Iraq and North Korea, they will now be doing all they can to develop nuclear weapons, knowing that we won't invade if they have them, but we almost certainly will if they don't.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative to ignorant and misguided use of military force is informed and wise usage of military force.
The main cause of the current disaster in Iraq is that the invasion and post-invasion rebuilding were planned and executed under the direction of folks who were actively misinformed and ignorant of basic facts of the Middle East and Iraq. For instance, "crusade" is the absolute worst word to use to describe a policy in the Mideast, but GWB used it. Turkish involvement in Iraq would bring back memories of the Ottoman Empire, but some idiots thought that all Muslims are alike, so involving Turkey would smooth things over; anybody who could count the population of Iraq figured it would take about 300,000 troops, but Shinseki was shitcanned and we went in with half that number; Iraq had nothing to do with (and Saddam Hussein was absolutely opposed to the agenda of) Islamic fundamentalism and Al Qaeda, but the Bush administration seems to actually believe it's political rhetoric tying those together; Iraq was a barely cohesive entity made up of three distinct ethnic/religious groups with no history of peacful and democratic co-existence, but the administration believed it could be magically turned into a multi-party multi-ethnic democracy overnight.
Somebody who knew anything about Iraq, for example, the British experience there in the 1920's and 1930's, would have agreed with GHWB's decision that toppling Saddam Hussein would cause mass disruption and create a fertile environment for lots of stuff bad for America to happen. In fact, they might have recognized that the main threats to America on Sept 12th 2001 were something like 1) Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan 2) North Korea 3) Pakistan 4) Iran
Can we suggest replacing fucking idiotic incompetent faith-based morons with capable, intelligent, fact-based experts without being labeled as wimps?
And, by the way, the primary reason Bill Clinton didn't get Osama bin Laden with cruise missiles is because our "ally in the war on terror" Pakistan tipped him off.
Re:So now it's official (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice straw man. The US isn't worried about the use ofIranian atomic bombs, but about unprovoked (terrorist) use, in a holy war, against an idealogical enemy, who poses no real threat. Civilian targets or not, doesn't make that big of a difference. Use of atomic bombs during a war with an approximately equally matched enemy doesn't make much of a difference. Just look at India and Pakistan's bomb programs, where the US did not threaten to invade. Of course, this is nothing like Japan.
Back in the 40s, there wasn't pin-point accuracy bombing. War was all about carpet-bombing your enemies industries, population, etc. The only alternative was to sit around and do nothing as your enemy bombed your country instead.
People look at the first atomic bombs in terms of the modern day, but that's just not the way it was. Looking at the evidence, even in hindsight, it was the least-terrible option.
In fact, even today, when faced with the option of droping atomic bombs on a waring country, or losing millions of American lives, droping the bomb would still be the better option, and nobody would argue, until 50 years later, when some idiot will post some brainless comment on the web about it.
Baby food factories, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I take it you consider kicking over a country and turning into a hotbed of terrorism over aluminum rocket tubes, a forged purchase letter "signed" by a dead man, and mobile weather balloon stations to be doing something more substantial, then?
Really. (Score:4, Insightful)
The rational objections to U.S. policy with regard to Iran are not bourn from a desire to see a 'fair' distribution of nuclear weapons. The rational objection to U.S. policy with regard to Iran is that ALL the social awareness sculpting through the media and the actions of the government are designed to start another war in the Middle East. Period. ANY semi-logical sounding argument for doing so will be employed to trick the public into going along with this desire. It is easy to come up with good sounding arguments for even the dumbest ideas.
War is profitable. Chaos is profitable. That is the bottom line. (Well, that and speeding along the Christian cultic agenda toward the apocalypse. But that's another story). --Priming the U.S. population for war with Iran has nothing to do with any of the reasons you suggest. Bush and his people are not interested in any philosophy which does not seek to maintain imbalance, chaos and a steady flow of public funds into their pockets through third party companies, (oil, defense, etc.).
They fooled the world once with WMD's in Iraq. They're doing it again with this nonsense about uranium plants in Iran. It's all propaganda and social programming.
-FL
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans can't process news in context.
Bush lied about Iraq wanting to attack us. He lied about them being connected with 9-11. He ignored every sane voice in the CIA and the military and the rest of the world, and invaded and conquered a helpless country, killing at least 30,000 and a statistically certain 70,000 more. We can't be sure because he claims we don't count the dead on the other side.
We alloted the oil fields to the four international oil companies, who have issued marching orders to the people of Iraq, dictating pricing and threats of retaliation if they are ever cut out of the deal. We stole their oil. We stole their treasury and looted it.
We rounded up anybody who looked at us funny and put them in concentration camps. We tortured the prisoners.
We let loose mercs and thugs and killers to steal and kill at will. The troops on the ground hate those 1000 dollar a day bastards. Remember the SA merc who shot innocent people from a vehicle, taped it, and set it to music, then released his video on the internet? That's a atom of what's happened on the ground there.
There's almost no power. Shit is coming out of Bagdad's water faucets. Literal manure. The contractors ran off with duffel bags of money and fixed jack shit.
20 billion in cash on pallets went missing. That was Iraqi money, not ours. We stole it.
We refused to let any Iraqis in on the rebuilding contracts. they went to American, well-connected republican contractors only. Who stole the money. Iraqis are not permitted to rebuild their own country. And oh yes, we paid the contractors with Iraqi money, so they are broke.
American troops, 90 percent of them, still think that they are punishing the country that attacked us on 9-11. Why? The Armed Forces only show Fox News Channel. The only radio they get piped in is Rush Limbaugh and NPR (which isn't exactly a bastion of truth about the war since the "cleanup" by Bush's enforcers). The soldiers have their web access to news filtered so they don't hear about, oh, Bush's lying about Saddam and 9-11. This all means that they still think they are kicking the asses of the enemies of America.
There aren't any "terrorists" in Iraq. There are pissed off patriots trying to kick out a conquering army.
These are the reasons why 15 who-cares people shot in the head on their knees makes the world scream. Deal with it. GET SOME PERSPECTIVE. Join the Reality Based Community, as Rove called it.
Re:Bear in mind... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure?
USA: "We're going to invade Iran, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity."
Iran: "Try it and lose New York."
USA: "Do that and we'll destroy you completely."
Iran: "You're going to kill us anyway. What have we got to lose?"
USA: "Er... fuck."
Iran's hypothetical nuclear capability, even if nowhere near capable of destroying the US entirely, is still enough to raise the costs of invading Iran to an unacceptable level. If the costs of invading Iran are 'billions of dollars, and a lot of Iranians getting killed' then Bush will probably do it. If the costs of invading Iran are 'billions of dollars, and nearly all the Iranians getting killed, and a big radioactive crater where Manhattan used to be' then Bush will probably think twice...
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:2, Insightful)
Where do you guys get this "They don't like us, they must envy us" nonsense ? You keep assuming everyone wants to be like an American. They don't. They just want to live their lives.
The US will support Israel in whatever it does. So when a Palestinian father all of a sudden is not allowed to go to work anymore, and can't provide any income for his family, he's supposed to like the US ? When a farmer wakes up to find a huge concrete wall where his fields used to be, he's supposed to just shrug it off ? What exactly are his courses of action here : can he go complain to the Israeli authorities ? These people have no control over large parts of their every day lives. Men who never had any bad thought in their entire lives will get so frustrated with being powerless that they're an easy target for people who try to get them to support terrorist activity. Give them the tools to control their own lives, and they will ignore the extremists.
This in no way excuses any harmful activity against others. But the Americans keep handing extremists the perfect recruitment tools.
Well, I believe it's not unattainable for America. (Score:3, Insightful)
To state that about what I specifically complained about is unattainable is cynical defeatism.
- Is not torturing prisoners unattainable?
- Is following the 6th Amendment and not having indefinite detentions unattainable?
- Is not privatizing an occupation (or at the very least keeping discipline in the security contractors) unattainable?
- Is keeping soldier discipline and morale high enough to avoid civillian massacres unattainable?
History shows we can do better than this. I don't believe that these goals are so hard to accomplish, and I think the betrayal of the Constitution that the first two represent is far closer to treason than demanding our government do better.Not only that but you're publicaly mocking them, thereby making them looks worse in the eyes of other citizens, your allies, and your enemies.
What would you have us do? Praise torture and the infliction of such despair as to cause repeated suicide attempts? Praise prison camps held outside the US specifically to skirt our Constitutional protections? Praise the use of unaccountable mercenaries to handle security? Or shoud I just close my eyes and pretend that we are the same as we were before and that these acts do not sully America. These things happened. Now we have to actually deal with them, and we can't do that with people attacking everybody with a sense of decency for not mutely saluting the flag and giving our blind faith to it.
As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," and that is exactly what you are asking of us with such a cynical comment.