Iran 'fires satellite into space'

[GregBurch]

This is probably getting hopelessly offtopic but I disagree with you. Iran isn't a fundamentally evil place. It's people are normal (if for the most part quite religious), it's leaders care about the country and their science/economy is strong.
I have no idea why the West continues to make Iran out as such a bogeyman, it's precisely that approach which has led to the Iranian leadership disliking us. If we left them alone we'd probably have a lot less problems with them.

And as for hanging homosexuals, a lot of people in Denmark think America is barbaric for killing murderers, whereas a lot of Americans (and myself) think differently. Cultures are different, people see different crimes with differing degrees of severity.
Whlie I think there's no excuse for some of the more inhumane punishments (such as stoning) I don't have a problem with Iran killing rapists, for instance.

You're right, my nasty political comments do tend to spoil things. So I'll leave it at this: You're younger than me. In my view, you'll surely live long enough to see the time when the kind of relativism you express above will either be the death of your civilization, or be finally abandoned because it is no longer possible to shrug one's shoulders and say, "That's just their way -- live and let live."

 

[DanP]

An exchange of two or three atom bombs in the Middle East will not destroy the planet - and would probably not even destroy Israel or Iran. The cost would be horrible for everybody and very likely nothing would be settled. It sure would insert discussion of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament into the news cycle (at least until the next sex scandal or baby-fallen-in-a-well drama...:dry. This "happy" outcome assumes that when one or two bombs start flying the atomic superpowers stay out of it.

I'm not sure I agree that an exchange of "a few" atom bombs in the Middle East is not a nightmare scenario, at least for the Middle East itself. Peace is kept in the Middle East mostly because Israel maintains its position as a military and economical power in a local scale. Given the small amount of population, concentrated in densely populated areas, and dependence on just a few economical and industrial centers, Israel could face losing this favourable position quite easily in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. That means Israel will not be clearly superior to its neighbours, and that means -- back to the 1950's/1960's. Very little will be necessary for the whole region to be dragged into a conflict.

On the other hand, Israeli possession of a large arsenal of atom bombs and means of delivering them to distant targets is a known secret. Mutually Assured Destruction was a good deterrent during the Cold War. I think military analysts will agree that pretty much anyone who attacks Israel with nuclear weapons faces a fair bit of assured destruction... However, will all psychologists agree that this is enough to deter the parties involved?

Between Israel vs. Iran, India vs. Pakistan, and North Korea vs. everybody I really expect such a small-scale exchange of half-a-dozen bombs to take place in my lifetime (and I will soon be 52). I don't see any way for the us to stop it from happening. The best outcome I can imagine is that it everyone else holds their fire, and that humanity generally is put off on using nuclear weapons for another 50 years.

The best outcome I can imagine is Iran not having nuclear weapons. Israel, and probably the rest of the world, will hardly be able to afford another outcome, in my opinion.

 

[SiberianTiger]

I think military analysts will agree that pretty much anyone who attacks Israel with nuclear weapons faces a fair bit of assured destruction...

Iran, for one, is mostly a mountain country. I don't know how much of their infrastructure are hidden in narrow valleys and other kinds of nooks, but what Israeli might be able to take out with their nukes? Their possess them in number of the order of tens. So, that would be mostly major cities and ports, I believe. Certainly not the entire population, not the entire infrastucture and not the entire army. This way, the nuclear strike exchange will become just opening of the hell's gates. Israel still needs a protection of the US.

 

[Usonian]

Japan is the exception to the rule. Every other country that has developed spacecraft launch vehicles has also developed ballistic missiles.

I agree. Japan is also exceptional (unique) in having actually absorbed a nuclear attack (twice). Still, a payload is a payload - it doesn't matter to the rocket if the payload burns up upon reentry or reaches the ground and explodes. It would take no real effort at all to turn a civil space program into something very much less than civil.

Pre-WWII Japan was certainly arrogant and brutal, and yet their response to having been "hit" is a reliable anti-nuke pacifism. It will be interesting to see how Israel, Iran, Pakistan (or the U.S.??) respond when their (our??) turn comes up.

 

[n122vu]

It will blast Israel off the map. Almost certainly doing damage in Jordan, potentially harming people in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
That's a lot of enemies of the same faith, so we may see a local war in the region without USA intervention...
Does Iran have anything against Israel?

Are you sure it's that easy to do? Pretty much all of the intelligence and customs workers going to be off their jobs if that happens.

Interesting scenario (in theoretical way only), is there any pre-considered scenario of what to do in such situation?
Like, if there is an active aggression -> send peacekeeping forces,
if there is a terrorist act done by somebody -> go bomb someone,
if there is a nuke went off in a major city -> ?

if there is a nuke went off in a major city -> See below...

***DISCLAIMER*** This is in no way meant to advocate nuclear responses to nuclear events. This is not meant to be an interpretation of what I feel should happen, but what I feel is the likely outcome. Please do not interpret this to mean I am a war-monger or advocate of nuclear war. This is mereley my guess as to how nuclear-armed nations would respond if a detonation occurred in one of their major cities and there was little doubt who was responsible. Let this be known: I am a pacifist but commend and support those in the military who are committed to their duty in serving their country by a means that I myself could not do with a clear conscience.

**EDIT** I wonder how many flags I set off with the FBI during this post LOL j/k

 

[Notebook]

This has turned into most interesting debate, if I can point this document out, it was written in the late 1950's regarding the UK nuclear deterent:-

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/img008-1.jpg

Apologies for the poor quality, if you can read item (l) and (m) it implies that the UK had a potential policy of using a "Fire First" doctrine, nearly regardless of the attitude of the US, its NATO partner.

It seems not a lot has changed?

N.

 

[Usonian]

The best outcome I can imagine is Iran not having nuclear weapons. Israel, and probably the rest of the world, will hardly be able to afford another outcome, in my opinion.

The best I can dream of is no one having WMD.

But that's a dream. I don't imagine we (the U.S.) will give up ours, so everyone else will want to keep (or get) their own. How long can we stop them? And how much of principle, justice and decency will we sacrifice to do it? And how long can we keep it up before the rest of the world asks, "Who will stop the U.S.?" But for now you are right - a "bombless" Iran is the only viable outcome.

The real problem with Iran is religion. Mutually assured destruction works fine if all parties are convinced (or at least worry) that death is final. If you really, really believe that God (or Santa Claus, or whatever) will save you, then all bets are off. Makes me nostalgic for the "Godless Communists." Makes me long for a new age of reason.

 

[GregBurch]

... well since the political discussion continued, and my friend and Project X-15 collaborator made this comment:

Makes me nostalgic for the "Godless Communists." Makes me long for a new age of reason.

I'll repost something I wrote on my blog a couple of years ago:

http://gregburch.net/2006/07/marx-and-muhammed-lately-ive-been.html

MARX AND MUHAMMED

Lately I've been feeling the need to clarify things to myself -- to try to restate as clearly as I can ideas that I've been developing for quite some time. One of these is the parallels and distinctions between two of the greatest challenges that the Western Enlightenment has faced: Marxism and Islam. Although the former began later in time, the nature of the challenge seems to be clearer to more people. Both Marxism and Islam present claims to possess complete world-views that are distinct from and superior to that of the liberal Enlightenment. Both developed into potent geopolitcal forces that resulted in the need for protracted struggle.

But there is a set of extremely significant distinctions between these two threats to the liberal world. These distinctions arise from the philosophical foundations of the two challenges. Marxism is a set of assertions about the world and how people should arrange their lives and relationships with each other based on a materialst philosophy that, at least in theory, accepted the rational scientific method as the final arbiter of truth or falsehood. Marxism made predictions about the material world and, most importantly, promised specific material results in the material world to a broad group of people (the proletariat).

Islam could not be more different. It rejects science as the arbiter of truth and makes no very specific promises to improve the material conditions of life for its adherents. Instead, it projects the reward for submission to Islam in an imaginary afterlife. The truth of this assertion cannot be inspected or tested for accuracy. After 60 years of communism in the Soviet Union, Russians could make a determination that Marxism wasn't delivering on its promises. But when the reward for adherence to an all-consuming world-view is placed beyond the ability to test or question, real conditions in the world cannot be used as a yardstick to check whether one is being sold a bill of goods.

This difference makes the nature of the protracted struggles faced by the West against these two fundamental challenges very different. In many ways, there was a basic premise inherent in the policy of containment taken against the communist world: Wait long enough and the truth of the superiority of liberal societies will become apparent to the world. But a policy of containment against Islamic imperialism cannot hope for such eventual success. Since Islam does not make any ambitious proposal to improve the lot of its followers in the real world, but only in an imaginary afterlife, no amount of waiting can undermine its claim to truth.

 

[n0mad23]

Greg,

Good post, but I think it's a total conflation of fundamentalist Islam with a more liberal secular variety. I was amused that with a simple changing of the term, the same applies perfectly to fundamentalist Christianity. I don't hear many American Muslims arguing for "intelligent design," but then perhaps they're a bit too worried about bringing attention to themselves? Pushing for the hanging the 10 commandments in classrooms or court-rooms isn't exactly the best of Western Liberalism.

Don't forget who it was that "saved" the Greek Classics to be rediscovered in the Renaissance. Yep, those darned Moors. Historically (with the rabid fundamentalist present as the exception), Islam has been far more friendly to science than many other religions.

 

[DanP]

Iran, for one, is mostly a mountain country. I don't know how much of their infrastructure are hidden in narrow valleys and other kinds of nooks, but what Israeli might be able to take out with their nukes? Their possess them in number of the order of tens. So, that would be mostly major cities and ports, I believe. Certainly not the entire population, not the entire infrastucture and not the entire army. This way, the nuclear strike exchange will become just opening of the hell's gates. Israel still needs a protection of the US.

Yes, of course, let me clarify what I'm saying - MAD isn't as relevant to the Middle East for most scenarios you can contemplate, as it was for the Cold War.

Iran, unlike Israel, has a strategic advantage of size, and probably far better distribution of population and economical, industrial and other infrastructure (although I'm not very well informed on the geography of Iran). Because most of Israel's population and infrastructure being so densely concentrated in a small area, a few nukes hitting Israel will have the same affect as a dozen on Iran. Such a strike, which Israel seems capable of delivering, will have devastating cosequences for Iran. Yes, Iran's army will still be mostly in fighting condition, and yes, most of the population will be unharmed. But that's not surprising and that's not the point. For one, its economy will be paralyzed for at least a decade. It will go from growing regional power to being in need of international aid. In principal, Iranian survival is probably assured even in case of nuclear war, unlike Israeli survival. In principal, both countries will lose EVERYTHING they built from the time they were founded in case of nuclear war, so in this context, it is MAD. If you or me were the leaders of Iran, would we say nuclear war offers a brighter future for our country? No. However, we're not the leaders of Iran, and the way things have been in the last 50 years in the Middle East, I know that I prefer not to give them that choice.

Edit: n0mad23 has a very good point about Islam and science. And in particular, Persians and science. It's fundamental Islam of the past century we're having to fight.

 

[GregBurch]

Greg,

Good post, but I think it's a total conflation of fundamentalist Islam with a more liberal secular variety. I was amused that with a simple changing of the term, the same applies perfectly to fundamentalist Christianity. I don't hear many American Muslims arguing for "intelligent design," but then perhaps they're a bit too worried about bringing attention to themselves? Pushing for the hanging the 10 commandments in classrooms or court-rooms isn't exactly the best of Western Liberalism.

Don't forget who it was that "saved" the Greek Classics to be rediscovered in the Renaissance. Yep, those darned Moors. Historically (with the rabid fundamentalist present as the exception), Islam has been far more friendly to science than many other religions.

You will find no more energetic opponent of fundamentalist Christianity than me, and I work and write against the role of religion in politics in the US consistently. But I suggest that the knee-jerk "what about fundamentalist Christians?!?!?" response to assertions that Islamism is a real threat to civilization is ... well, wrong. (I'm trying to be nice. In truth, I think it's terrible, and a symptom of a kind of self-loathing and moral relativism that infects many, many intellectuals in the West.)

If you want to engage in a little calibration of your moral yardstick, try opening a mosque in Dallas. Now, go to Riyadh and try opening a Christian church. Go to some other Bible Belt city and walk down the street as an open homosexual. Now do the same in Tehran. Come back with your report.

 

[Usonian]

If you want to engage in a little calibration of your moral yardstick, try opening a mosque in Dallas. Now, go to Riyadh and try opening a Christian church. Go to some other Bible Belt city and walk down the street as an open homosexual. Now do the same in Tehran. Come back with your report.

I liked that blog entry when first I read it two years ago. And there really can be no arguing with your calibration. This "self-loathing" intellectual liberal will readily concede that their fundementalists are currently worse than ours - more fearful, more inflexible, more brutal and (here's the fine point) in control.

I suspect if our fundementalist had the same measure of unchallenged power they would be hanging witches in a heart beat. I think our fundementalists are better behaved because self-loathing liberals have kept them in check since about 1700.

You may thank us any time

P.S.
Come to think of it, if we self-loathing liberals (or any narrow group) held unchallenged power the world would be just as awful. I will consider thanking you.... later.

 

[John_L]

Ok, who's doin' the addon?

 

[n0mad23]

Yeah I found it pretty ironic that US soldiers had to hide the fact they were celebrating Christmas in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, when the Christians in Baghdad were still celebrating openly.

However the fact remains that my pious Muslim friends by and large have been far more tolerant and willing to debate issues of religion with me than have been my Christian ones. As a kid, I found the Sunni's in Indonesia to be open to nearly any topic of discussion. Some of the most interesting free thinkers I've met in the last decade have been Iranian exiles.

Just how many Iranians were involved in 9-11 anyway?

I'm thinking fear of fundamentalist Muslims is probably more dangerous than the actual threat they pose. Unless of course we're going to talk about oil fields, the House of Saud and Wahab backing.

 

[GregBurch]

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya

 

[simonpro]

You're right, my nasty political comments do tend to spoil things. So I'll leave it at this: You're younger than me. In my view, you'll surely live long enough to see the time when the kind of relativism you express above will either be the death of your civilization, or be finally abandoned because it is no longer possible to shrug one's shoulders and say, "That's just their way -- live and let live."

It's nothing to do with "live and let live". I'd propose stopping this damned aggression towards Iran and playing a much calmer game. The Iranians are'nt stupid, they know any move against the West would be suicide for them and, possibly, the majority of Islamic middle eastern countries. They wouldn't risk that.
The entire situation would be better managed by lifting some of the sanctions and dealing with them like the mature middle eastern power that they are, rather than a small child who needs to be constantly disciplined.

All we're doing is giving them reasons to dislike us.

 

[Notebook]

The general accused Nato of increasing tensions by massing forces in the Black Sea. He said the arrival of Spanish, German, US and Polish ships in the Black Sea "did not contribute to the settlement of the situation

Russia to keep forces at key port

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7578250.stm

N.

 

[Spicer]

Gregburch,
Just wondering. You say that if Obama is elected, there is a very good chance of some kind of military action against Iran?

If he's like the most recent Dem. president, even if there were a nuclear attack on the continental U.S., he probably would fling a dozen cruise missles at Iran, then nod his head with authority.

When the day comes that there is that kind of attack on the US, there should be a "turn them into a crater" response! I think President Bill should have done that after the attacks on our Navy and Embassies. That would have avoided 9-11 from ever happening. He had strong intelligence on where bin Laden was through much of his presidency.

 

[n0mad23]

It seems to me the most effective critiques come from in-house, and we should fix our own problems first. Granted, Iran's got some draconian laws in place, but then so do we. I can't imagine the US has got a lot of legal credibility when we're only one of two states in the world that that still execute minors.

And Texas' prison population raises eyebrows around the world as well.

"Self-hating liberals?" I'd really suggest reviewing Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," as certain 'buzz phrases' indicate there isn't a whole lot of thinking going on.

 

[Andy44]

Gregburch,
Just wondering. You say that if Obama is elected, there is a very good chance of some kind of military action against Iran?

If he's like the most recent Dem. president, even if there were a nuclear attack on the continental U.S., he probably would fling a dozen cruise missles at Iran, then nod his head with authority.

When the day comes that there is that kind of attack on the US, there should be a "turn them into a crater" response! I think President Bill should have done that after the attacks on our Navy and Embassies. That would have avoided 9-11 from ever happening. He had strong intelligence on where bin Laden was through much of his presidency.

I think Greg's point was that if Obama wins the election, Bush will attack Iran in order to make sure Obama's feet are stuck in the mud when he takes office.

As for the nonsense turning Afghanistan into a crater, either before or after 911, that falls under the category of mass murder and is not even close to being justified. Murdering hundreds of thousands of women and children because some guys might hijack a plane is so evil it's beyond words to describe. Keep in mind that this attitude is what drives people in Iran and North Korea to hurry up and get the Bomb in order to fend off people with murderess attitudes like this, and leads people to see Americans as self-rightous clowns who think they can kill whoever they want.