What Ought to Happen/What IS Going To Happen In Iran.

[sdr]

What Ought to Happen/What IS Going To Happen In Iran.

Deterrence is one thing, retaliation is something else
entirely: Israel has the ability to retaliate after an
Iranian attack, but it does not have the ability to
deter an Iranian attack--Such an attack by Iran is
inevitable unless Iran is physically incapable of
carrying it out, and the very instant Iran is able to
carry out such an attack it will do so regardless of
any consequences it may suffer because of it.

Because of the malevolent influence of Islam, Iran is
a nation/a people that believes in terrorism (the
Koran specifically demands that Muslims "terrorize"
non-believers), therefore Iran is a nation that has a
genuine faith in terrorism.

The one thing Iranians "may" pay any attention to
is an act itself so filled with sheer terror that it "may"
finally make them pull back from the brink. This
might be accomplished by setting off a high-yield
nuclear device on Iranian territory close enough to
Tehran (after the proper leaf-dropping notice) that
everybody there can see for themselves the actual
consequences TO THEMSELVES of nuclear war, without
necessarily having the usual massive loss of lives
that would accompany the actual thing. (I would be
inclined to favor a high-altitude detonation for the
psychological effects which an EM pulse might have.)

People often get themselves so wrapped up relishing
the hurt they're going to put on their enemies that
they completely fail to give any thought at all to
the hurt their enemies can put on them. And this is
especially the case when people are convinced they
are acting under the instruction and protection of
God: The Iranians are living under a suicidal self-
delusion, and either the world wakes them up from
this delusion, or they will perish (and MUST perish)
... and never know why they had to perish.

This idea had been advocated in WWII, but was
abandoned because it was thought that it would
only reinforce the Japanese belief that the U.S.
would never use nukes on Japanese civilians (and
because the U.S. did not have enough devices ready
to "waste" one on a mere demonstration). But here
it may do the trick. And, in ANY CASE, it is
certainly worthwhile to try to prevent the
unimaginable, massive loss of life (and political
repercussions) that a nuclear exchange in the
Middle East will cause: The alternative makes it
indispensable that we should try every possible
trick in the book before giving up the ghost.

Unfortunately for everyone, this is not what is going
to take place in the Iranian crisis.

Unfortunately, people will always try to buy their way
out of Hell on the cheap first--EVERY TIME. Maybe it's
a glitch in the human thinking process which in our
biological past probably had some survival value (this
inability of ours to acknowledge that we ARE in Hell
and the first thing we need to do is get ourselves out
of here no matter what it may cost). But, whatever the
reason, I am confident the world will deny to itself
that Iran really is going to do what it says it's
going to do (Hitler certainly told the world exactly
what he was going to do, and even today some people
still refuse to believe that he actually went ahead
and did exactly as he said he'd do).

No. What is going to happen is ... a conventional
air-strike on Iran's "nuclear" facilities. Almost a
waste of time, really. After which, Iran will unleash
a ballistic onslaught on Israel, probably using
chemical/biological warfare (and possibly including
one or two "dirty" bombs as well), which will cause
untold butchery of Israelis. Inevitably, Israel must
then really well & truly "nuke" Iran, with the
accompanying massive loss of lives such a retaliation
will occasion... probably the extinction of the once
great Persian people from the book of human history.

This may all come about as the inevitable consequence
of human limitations, but it still grieves me to know
that it doesn't have to be the case... were people to
be able to act intelligently but just only sometimes.

And... when will all this happen? Not long after the
death of Saddam Hussein. (As if it were some great
feat of prophecy to predict this.)

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

[Zeno]

Post by sdr
What Ought to Happen/What IS Going To Happen In Iran.
Deterrence is one thing, retaliation is something else
entirely: Israel has the ability to retaliate after an
Iranian attack, but it does not have the ability to
deter an Iranian attack--Such an attack by Iran is
inevitable unless Iran is physically incapable of
carrying it out, and the very instant Iran is able to
carry out such an attack it will do so regardless of
any consequences it may suffer because of it.
Because of the malevolent influence of Islam, Iran is
a nation/a people that believes in terrorism (the
Koran specifically demands that Muslims "terrorize"
non-believers), therefore Iran is a nation that has a
genuine faith in terrorism.
The one thing Iranians "may" pay any attention to
is an act itself so filled with sheer terror that it "may"
finally make them pull back from the brink. This
might be accomplished by setting off a high-yield
nuclear device on Iranian territory close enough to
Tehran (after the proper leaf-dropping notice) that
everybody there can see for themselves the actual
consequences TO THEMSELVES of nuclear war, without
necessarily having the usual massive loss of lives
that would accompany the actual thing. (I would be
inclined to favor a high-altitude detonation for the
psychological effects which an EM pulse might have.)
People often get themselves so wrapped up relishing
the hurt they're going to put on their enemies that
they completely fail to give any thought at all to
the hurt their enemies can put on them. And this is
especially the case when people are convinced they
are acting under the instruction and protection of
God: The Iranians are living under a suicidal self-
delusion, and either the world wakes them up from
this delusion, or they will perish (and MUST perish)
... and never know why they had to perish.
This idea had been advocated in WWII, but was
abandoned because it was thought that it would
only reinforce the Japanese belief that the U.S.
would never use nukes on Japanese civilians (and
because the U.S. did not have enough devices ready
to "waste" one on a mere demonstration). But here
it may do the trick. And, in ANY CASE, it is
certainly worthwhile to try to prevent the
unimaginable, massive loss of life (and political
repercussions) that a nuclear exchange in the
Middle East will cause: The alternative makes it
indispensable that we should try every possible
trick in the book before giving up the ghost.
Unfortunately for everyone, this is not what is going
to take place in the Iranian crisis.
Unfortunately, people will always try to buy their way
out of Hell on the cheap first--EVERY TIME. Maybe it's
a glitch in the human thinking process which in our
biological past probably had some survival value (this
inability of ours to acknowledge that we ARE in Hell
and the first thing we need to do is get ourselves out
of here no matter what it may cost). But, whatever the
reason, I am confident the world will deny to itself
that Iran really is going to do what it says it's
going to do (Hitler certainly told the world exactly
what he was going to do, and even today some people
still refuse to believe that he actually went ahead
and did exactly as he said he'd do).
No. What is going to happen is ... a conventional
air-strike on Iran's "nuclear" facilities. Almost a
waste of time, really. After which, Iran will unleash
a ballistic onslaught on Israel, probably using
chemical/biological warfare (and possibly including
one or two "dirty" bombs as well), which will cause
untold butchery of Israelis. Inevitably, Israel must
then really well & truly "nuke" Iran, with the
accompanying massive loss of lives such a retaliation
will occasion... probably the extinction of the once
great Persian people from the book of human history.
This may all come about as the inevitable consequence
of human limitations, but it still grieves me to know
that it doesn't have to be the case... were people to
be able to act intelligently but just only sometimes.
And... when will all this happen? Not long after the
death of Saddam Hussein. (As if it were some great
feat of prophecy to predict this.)
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

Thank you for the consideration this subject deserves.

Although I disagree with some aspects, I certainly do agree that the
path you laid out to Iran's demise is possible.

Here is another consideration.

Consider the state of the world after the land mass of Iran is no
longer inhabitable. Muslims will have learned a strong lesson and
could lead to a long period of peace in the region. Perhaps as much
as one generation. After that one can only hope that a terrorist
supporting state doesn't form again. Otherwise, more carnage.

[J Thomas]

Post by Zeno

Post by sdr
What Ought to Happen/What IS Going To Happen In Iran.

Thank you for the consideration this subject deserves.

A bit of sly humor there, heh?

Post by Zeno
Although I disagree with some aspects, I certainly do agree that the
path you laid out to Iran's demise is possible.

Starting with a US conventional strike and escalating to the
destruction of israel and iran? I guess it's possible, but not at all
likely.

Consider, now, where does israel get their oil? We have guaranteed we
will give them all the oil they need, but where exactly does it come
from?

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html#Econ

The CIA estimates that israel produces about 2700 barrels of oil a day
and consumes about 270,000 barrels a day. That is, they can produce
about 1% of what they need. They have reserves of about 2 million
barrels, just about a week's worth.

Here's a hint. When Saddam was in charge of iraq and iraq was under
sanctions, a lot of jordan's economy was based on smuggling oil out of
iraq. Jordan gets this smuggled oil, and where does it go? Who doesn't
mind buying smuggled oil, oil they can't prove where they got it?

So the oil goes from the oilfields through anbar province and across
the jordanian border and then to israel. Everybody involved knows where
it's going, they're sending half-price oil to israel, and nobody
disrupts it because they want their share of the money. And you guys
want to say these arabs are so fanatical they don't mind getting nuked
provided they get to attack israel first. It's silly.

So if anybody was willing to do what it takes to block the oil to
israel, it would cost us more than twice as much for israel's oil. It
would not only be more expensive but we'd have to ship it farther. You
think they're ready to nuke israel and get nuked back, when they
haven't even bothered to take this little simple anonymous step to
annoy us?

Israel has nukes and a solid delivery system. They don't have a
credible mortal enemy in the world. To give them a credible enemy you
have to pretend that some millions of arabs/muslims are ready to commit
mass suicide for a shot to kill israelis. But they aren't. There's a
steady supply of arabs willing to do suicide bombing. These are the
same ones that would otherwise commit suicide over unhappy love
affairs. There aren't any populations of arabs ready to get their
grandmothers mothers and baby nieces killed over some dispute with evil
people in another country. It's sheer fantasy. But a pleasant fantasy,
for those whose minds run in that direction.

People try to repeat these fantasies with a straight face. SDR never
manages it, he can't stop smirking.

[Zeno]

Post by J Thomas
Israel has nukes and a solid delivery system. They don't have a
credible mortal enemy in the world. To give them a credible enemy you
have to pretend that some millions of arabs/muslims are ready to commit
mass suicide for a shot to kill israelis. But they aren't. There's a
steady supply of arabs willing to do suicide bombing.

Right. In some sense, a stated enemy that hasn't attacked yet is not
credible or mortal.

[J Thomas]

Post by Zeno

Post by J Thomas
Israel has nukes and a solid delivery system. They don't have a
credible mortal enemy in the world. To give them a credible enemy you
have to pretend that some millions of arabs/muslims are ready to commit
mass suicide for a shot to kill israelis. But they aren't. There's a
steady supply of arabs willing to do suicide bombing.

Right. In some sense, a stated enemy that hasn't attacked yet is not
credible or mortal.

If we're agreed, fine. But I get the subtle sense that you're being
ironic.

Look at it this way. If your wife or daughter was in immediate danger
of being killed, would you face extreme danger to protect them? Of
course you would. You'd face certain death to protect your family.
Would you face certain death to protect your cousin or niece? Maybe.

Now say you heard somebody was threatening your fifth cousin and
somebody from your church. Would you face certain death for them? Would
you be willing to have your whole family killed to strike at those who
threaten your fifth cousin and somebody from your church?

Suicide bombers are young people -- usually young people with romantic
difficulties -- who think they're protecting their families. A young
person volunteering to die is entirely different from a whole country
volunteering to die. When we see suicide bomber families all together
-- grandmothers and mothers and 2-year-olds and infants all dying
together hoping they can take some israelis with them -- then we'll
know they've got real problems. Then there might be whole nations with
a death wish.

So far the closest I've seen is israel. They parked themselves in one
of the worst slums on the planet and did everything they could to piss
off the natives. Now their supporters fantasize about preventive
nuclear war. "They're going to nuke us if we don't nuke them first!"
Death cult.

[Zeno]

Post by J Thomas

Post by Zeno

Post by J Thomas
Israel has nukes and a solid delivery system. They don't have a
credible mortal enemy in the world. To give them a credible enemy you
have to pretend that some millions of arabs/muslims are ready to commit
mass suicide for a shot to kill israelis. But they aren't. There's a
steady supply of arabs willing to do suicide bombing.

Right. In some sense, a stated enemy that hasn't attacked yet is not
credible or mortal.

If we're agreed, fine. But I get the subtle sense that you're being
ironic.
Look at it this way. If your wife or daughter was in immediate danger
of being killed, would you face extreme danger to protect them? Of
course you would. You'd face certain death to protect your family.
Would you face certain death to protect your cousin or niece? Maybe.
Now say you heard somebody was threatening your fifth cousin and
somebody from your church. Would you face certain death for them? Would
you be willing to have your whole family killed to strike at those who
threaten your fifth cousin and somebody from your church?
Suicide bombers are young people -- usually young people with romantic
difficulties -- who think they're protecting their families. A young
person volunteering to die is entirely different from a whole country
volunteering to die. When we see suicide bomber families all together
-- grandmothers and mothers and 2-year-olds and infants all dying
together hoping they can take some israelis with them -- then we'll
know they've got real problems. Then there might be whole nations with
a death wish.
So far the closest I've seen is israel. They parked themselves in one
of the worst slums on the planet and did everything they could to piss
off the natives. Now their supporters fantasize about preventive
nuclear war. "They're going to nuke us if we don't nuke them first!"
Death cult.

Your argument fails to account for a single person pushing one single
button.

[s***@sdrodrian.com]

from The New York Times, November 14, 2006:

Iranian media on Monday quoted Mr. Ahmadinejad
saying of Israel, "We will SOON witness its
disappearance and destruction."

I believe he means what he says. I believe that if
he is not stopped NOW he will indeed SOON do
everything in his power to do exactly what he says.
I believe that the only way to keep him from doing it
is to take away his power to do it. And that there is
no other way, believe what you will.

from the AP, November 15, 2006:

VIENNA, Austria - International Atomic Energy
experts have found unexplained plutonium and highly
enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility
in Iran and have asked Tehran for an explanation, an
IAEA report said Tuesday.

Plutonium plays no part whatsoever in the materials
used to power a nuclear plant: The world is going to
be very unpleasantly surprised by Iran much sooner
than it thinks.

SD "Cassandra" Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

Post by sdr
What Ought to Happen/What IS Going To Happen In Iran.
Deterrence is one thing, retaliation is something else
entirely: Israel has the ability to retaliate after an
Iranian attack, but it does not have the ability to
deter an Iranian attack--Such an attack by Iran is
inevitable unless Iran is physically incapable of
carrying it out, and the very instant Iran is able to
carry out such an attack it will do so regardless of
any consequences it may suffer because of it.
Because of the malevolent influence of Islam, Iran is
a nation/a people that believes in terrorism (the
Koran specifically demands that Muslims "terrorize"
non-believers), therefore Iran is a nation that has a
genuine faith in terrorism.
The one thing Iranians "may" pay any attention to
is an act itself so filled with sheer terror that it "may"
finally make them pull back from the brink. This
might be accomplished by setting off a high-yield
nuclear device on Iranian territory close enough to
Tehran (after the proper leaf-dropping notice) that
everybody there can see for themselves the actual
consequences TO THEMSELVES of nuclear war, without
necessarily having the usual massive loss of lives
that would accompany the actual thing. (I would be
inclined to favor a high-altitude detonation for the
psychological effects which an EM pulse might have.)
People often get themselves so wrapped up relishing
the hurt they're going to put on their enemies that
they completely fail to give any thought at all to
the hurt their enemies can put on them. And this is
especially the case when people are convinced they
are acting under the instruction and protection of
God: The Iranians are living under a suicidal self-
delusion, and either the world wakes them up from
this delusion, or they will perish (and MUST perish)
... and never know why they had to perish.
This idea had been advocated in WWII, but was
abandoned because it was thought that it would
only reinforce the Japanese belief that the U.S.
would never use nukes on Japanese civilians (and
because the U.S. did not have enough devices ready
to "waste" one on a mere demonstration). But here
it may do the trick. And, in ANY CASE, it is
certainly worthwhile to try to prevent the
unimaginable, massive loss of life (and political
repercussions) that a nuclear exchange in the
Middle East will cause: The alternative makes it
indispensable that we should try every possible
trick in the book before giving up the ghost.
Unfortunately for everyone, this is not what is going
to take place in the Iranian crisis.
Unfortunately, people will always try to buy their way
out of Hell on the cheap first--EVERY TIME. Maybe it's
a glitch in the human thinking process which in our
biological past probably had some survival value (this
inability of ours to acknowledge that we ARE in Hell
and the first thing we need to do is get ourselves out
of here no matter what it may cost). But, whatever the
reason, I am confident the world will deny to itself
that Iran really is going to do what it says it's
going to do (Hitler certainly told the world exactly
what he was going to do, and even today some people
still refuse to believe that he actually went ahead
and did exactly as he said he'd do).
No. What is going to happen is ... a conventional
air-strike on Iran's "nuclear" facilities. Almost a
waste of time, really. After which, Iran will unleash
a ballistic onslaught on Israel, probably using
chemical/biological warfare (and possibly including
one or two "dirty" bombs as well), which will cause
untold butchery of Israelis. Inevitably, Israel must
then really well & truly "nuke" Iran, with the
accompanying massive loss of lives such a retaliation
will occasion... probably the extinction of the once
great Persian people from the book of human history.
This may all come about as the inevitable consequence
of human limitations, but it still grieves me to know
that it doesn't have to be the case... were people to
be able to act intelligently but just only sometimes.
And... when will all this happen? Not long after the
death of Saddam Hussein. (As if it were some great
feat of prophecy to predict this.)
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

[stevemur]

Post by s***@sdrodrian.com
Iranian media on Monday quoted Mr. Ahmadinejad
saying of Israel, "We will SOON witness its
disappearance and destruction."
I believe he means what he says. I believe that if
he is not stopped NOW he will indeed SOON do
everything in his power to do exactly what he says.

Your original post explained that Islam will make the Iranian leader do
this crazy thing. You gave a couple of quotes from the Qu'ran.

I think anyone who reads these books critically -- bible, qu'ran --
realizes that you can use them to argue whatever you want. Probably,
as the saying goes, "That's not a bug, that's a feature". When you
want to calm down the Jews, or the Christians, or the Muslims, you
quote from one section; when you want them in a war frenzy, you quote
from a different one. Very convenient that way.

Maybe the Iranian president does mean what he says, but I don't think
you can argue "Islam is making him do it". Anymore than you can
explain the crusades by saying that the popes were fenatical
Christians, and it's a violent religion. (The Jewish and Christian
texts have just as nasty stuff in them as what you quoted, as you
probably know. It's all there, waiting to be used. So you need to
answer the question "Why is Islam being used this way now," if you
think that it is.)

[J Thomas]

Post by s***@sdrodrian.com
Plutonium plays no part whatsoever in the materials
used to power a nuclear plant.

You are misinformed. Profitable nuclear plants use plutonium. Far far
cheaper.

Currently power plants use thorium, U235, or plutonium.

U235 must be "enriched" at great expense. After it's used it can be
enriched again at great expense. After the second enrichment it could
be enriched a third time but at that point the contaminants are so
nasty it isn't worth it, it has become nuclear waste.

Plutonium is cheap, it is made from plentiful U238 and requires only a
chemical separation. If you leave some U238 in it, no problem -- that
will get converted to plutonium too. Plutonium results in far cheaper
nuclear power. There's only one major reason not to use it -- cheap
plutonium means cheap bombs.

So we have this giant energy crunch, and all over the world people are
using expensive expensive LEU plants so they can persuade us they
aren't going to make nukes. This is why nuclear energy has been such a
dead end. It makes perfect sense that the iranians -- who can never
ever persuade us they aren't making nukes -- would build breeder
reactors for their power. But of course they'd do the same thing if
they wanted nukes....

You are taking an insignificant inconclusive factoid and acting like it
shows the iranians are eager to nuke israel and be nuked in return.
It's because that's what's in your head. You thirst for nuclear war.
Since nonproliferation is dead now, no doubt eventually you'll get your
wish.

[Gordon]

Post by J Thomas

Post by s***@sdrodrian.com
Plutonium plays no part whatsoever in the materials
used to power a nuclear plant.

You are misinformed. Profitable nuclear plants use plutonium. Far far
cheaper.
Currently power plants use thorium, U235, or plutonium.
U235 must be "enriched" at great expense. After it's used it can be
enriched again at great expense. After the second enrichment it could
be enriched a third time but at that point the contaminants are so
nasty it isn't worth it, it has become nuclear waste.
Plutonium is cheap, it is made from plentiful U238 and requires only a
chemical separation. If you leave some U238 in it, no problem -- that
will get converted to plutonium too. Plutonium results in far cheaper
nuclear power. There's only one major reason not to use it -- cheap
plutonium means cheap bombs.
So we have this giant energy crunch, and all over the world people are
using expensive expensive LEU plants so they can persuade us they
aren't going to make nukes. This is why nuclear energy has been such a
dead end. It makes perfect sense that the iranians -- who can never
ever persuade us they aren't making nukes -- would build breeder
reactors for their power. But of course they'd do the same thing if
they wanted nukes....

The one thing Iran could do, but so far has refused to do is
allow open, unrestricted inspections by some international body
who could ascertain that the Iranians' intentions and their
progress is indeed along the lines of pure and simple energy
production. Why do they persist in drawing negative speculation
about their intentions if they are truly being honest with the
rest of the world? If they truly don't have anything to hide, why
do they seem so determined to hid it?

If someone were to walk into a bank with his/her hand concealed,
and present themself in such a way as to lead the guards to think
this person had a gun, would it be reasonable for the guards to
just sit there with their hands folded in their laps until this
person pulled out a gun and fired on anyone who seemed to present
a challenge? I can see how some would support the contention that
the guards should draw their weapons and get in the first shots,
before things got completely out of control.

Gordon

Post by J Thomas
You are taking an insignificant inconclusive factoid and acting like it
shows the iranians are eager to nuke israel and be nuked in return.
It's because that's what's in your head. You thirst for nuclear war.
Since nonproliferation is dead now, no doubt eventually you'll get your
wish.

Should we doubt that Iran would indeed like to see Israel totally
exterminated?

Gordon

[J Thomas]

Post by Gordon
The one thing Iran could do, but so far has refused to do is
allow open, unrestricted inspections by some international body
who could ascertain that the Iranians' intentions and their
progress is indeed along the lines of pure and simple energy
production. Why do they persist in drawing negative speculation
about their intentions if they are truly being honest with the
rest of the world? If they truly don't have anything to hide, why
do they seem so determined to hid it?

Well, let's look at that. We say we will be satisfied if they use only
LEU light-water reactors and let somebody else provide the fuel and
reprocess it, and provided they allow full inspections.

But no foreign country in their right mind would allow the USA to do
full inspections. When we "inspected" iraq we went to every military
facility we thought might have any interest and "inspected" it for
nukes, and we took GPS readings so that when we attacked we could just
blast whatever we wanted. Nobody who's under threat of attack by the
USA would be willing to show us all their military secrets to prove
they aren't nuke sites. That turns our initial attack into a
fish-barrel shoot. And if we don't want them to have nuclear power
plants (and we don't, they might find a way to use them to make nukes)
after we've inspected everything and we know exactly where it all is we
can just blow it up.

Now consider the LEU part. Iran has their own uranium. We're telling
them to sell their uranium cheap to a foreign nation that will process
it and sell them LEU expensive. Then they give the foreign nation the
spent fuel and the foreign nation sells the reprocessed fuel back to
them expensive. Iran is going to run out of oil in 20 to 30 or so
years, and they'll be depending on those nuclear plants. If the foreign
nation stiffs them, what can they do? If the few foreign nations that
can reprocess fuel agree to boycot iran, then iran is screwed. Would
you accept those terms if it was your country?

Now say you're planning nuclear energy for real. Instead of
tremendously expensive isotope processing, you want to do cheap breeder
reactors. Instead of using just the rare U235 you get to convert all
your U238 to plutonium cheaply and get lots of cheap power. But how can
you prove you aren't making bombs with some of that plutonium? There's
no way to prove you aren't, if you aren't. So if you need nuclear power
(which iran will need in about the time it takes them to build LEU
reactors to make their first plutonium, and then build breeder reactors
to make more, and then reactors optimised for power production, and
then ramp up to provide the electricity for a whole country) the
obvious approach is to do it and stall to avoid getting the stuff
bombed out by the USA, and make a few bombs so the USA is scared to
attack. By threatening them we strongly encourage them to make bombs.

Their alternative is to mostly give up on nuclear power. Extremely
expensive LEU reactors that are dependent on foreign powers for fuel
are research toys. You can't possibly run an economy on them.

On the other hand they could actually want bombs more than they want
nuclear power. When the best available technology makes it easy for
them to have both, then it's just their intention that makes the
difference.

Post by Gordon

Post by J Thomas
You are taking an insignificant inconclusive factoid and acting like it
shows the iranians are eager to nuke israel and be nuked in return.
It's because that's what's in your head. You thirst for nuclear war.
Since nonproliferation is dead now, no doubt eventually you'll get your
wish.

Should we doubt that Iran would indeed like to see Israel totally
exterminated?

Yes, of course we should doubt that. And we should doubt they want to
sit down with the zionists and sing kumbayah, too. Try to put yourself
in their place and imagine how you'd feel.

And we should strongly doubt that they want to see israel exterminated
so intensely that they don't mind getting exterminated themselves. We
made up that fantasy about all our enemies. We used to say the russian
leadership didn't care if their whole country got destroyed provided
they destroyed the USA. Because they would survive in their bunkers,
and after 2 years they could come out and with the USA gone
international communism would have nothing to stop it from conquering
the whole world and so the russian leaders would have won. They didn't
care if 99.9% of the russians died if it meant international communism
won. And we said it about the chinese. They thought they had so many
people they could easily survive a nuclear war that nobody else did. If
the USA got exterminated but 10% of the chinese survived, they'd win.
Coldblooded, they were, they were planning nuclear war because they
thought they'd be better off without all those people anyway.

We always make up these stories.

[Zeno]

Post by J Thomas
Nobody who's under threat of attack by the
USA would be willing to show us all their military secrets to prove
they aren't nuke sites. That turns our initial attack into a
fish-barrel shoot. And if we don't want them to have nuclear power
plants (and we don't, they might find a way to use them to make nukes)
after we've inspected everything and we know exactly where it all is we
can just blow it up.

Mr. Thomas, don't expect yourself to be convincing by saying things
like this...

[J Thomas]

Post by Zeno

Post by J Thomas
Nobody who's under threat of attack by the
USA would be willing to show us all their military secrets to prove
they aren't nuke sites. That turns our initial attack into a
fish-barrel shoot. And if we don't want them to have nuclear power
plants (and we don't, they might find a way to use them to make nukes)
after we've inspected everything and we know exactly where it all is we
can just blow it up.

Mr. Thomas, don't expect yourself to be convincing by saying things
like this...

Zeno old buddy, you're welcome to attempt a convincing alternative
argument.

Bet you can't.

[Zeno]

Post by J Thomas

Post by Zeno

Post by J Thomas
Nobody who's under threat of attack by the
USA would be willing to show us all their military secrets to prove
they aren't nuke sites. That turns our initial attack into a
fish-barrel shoot. And if we don't want them to have nuclear power
plants (and we don't, they might find a way to use them to make nukes)
after we've inspected everything and we know exactly where it all is we
can just blow it up.

Mr. Thomas, don't expect yourself to be convincing by saying things
like this...

Zeno old buddy, you're welcome to attempt a convincing alternative
argument.
Bet you can't.

Alternatives are easy. A likely cohesive alternative is difficult.

[J Thomas]

Post by Zeno

Post by J Thomas

Post by Zeno
Mr. Thomas, don't expect yourself to be convincing by saying things
like this...

Zeno old buddy, you're welcome to attempt a convincing alternative
argument.
Bet you can't.

Alternatives are easy. A likely cohesive alternative is difficult.

OK, you don't feel convinced by my argument and you admit you can't
find a better one. Done.

[Zeno]

Post by J Thomas

Post by Zeno

Post by J Thomas

Post by Zeno
Mr. Thomas, don't expect yourself to be convincing by saying things
like this...

Zeno old buddy, you're welcome to attempt a convincing alternative
argument.
Bet you can't.

Alternatives are easy. A likely cohesive alternative is difficult.

OK, you don't feel convinced by my argument and you admit you can't
find a better one. Done.

Ok, the gauntlet is down. How about this consideration:

Consider the state of the world after the land mass of Iran is no
longer inhabitable. Muslims will have learned a strong lesson and
could lead to a long period of peace in the region. Perhaps as much
as one generation. After that one can only hope that a terrorist
supporting state doesn't form again. Otherwise, more carnage.

[J Thomas]

Post by Zeno
Consider the state of the world after the land mass of Iran is no
longer inhabitable. Muslims will have learned a strong lesson and
could lead to a long period of peace in the region. Perhaps as much
as one generation. After that one can only hope that a terrorist
supporting state doesn't form again. Otherwise, more carnage.

I offered you an argument why iran might reasonably want to hide even a
peaceful nuclear program.

You have presented a claim that genocide might lead to peace, without
much elaboration at all.

Well, let's try a historical example. Did the german genocide of jews
lead to peace? Not for zionists, they learned an entirely different set
of lessons. They became ruthless warriors. They have nukes, and nerve
gas, and biological weapons apparently including one of the very last
repositories of smallpox in the world. The USA and USSR were ready to
give up theirs (knowing they could synthesise it from the gene sequence
if they wanted to). Various insane israelis and foreign zionists talk
about israel making unprovoked nuclear attacks.

On the other hand, israel has never attacked germany. Perhaps it could
be argued that the genocide did bring peace to germany. Maybe you have
a sort of point.

However, there are WMDs that no one talks about, that do not make good
first-strike weapons but that are truly excellent for revenge. Cheap,
almost impossible to prevent, even hard to detect immediately after an
attack. I don't know whether the silence about such things comes
because no one wants crazy people to think about them, or whether it's
because there are governments which haven't thought about them and no
one who has wants it to spread further. If israel depopulated iran,
iranian sleeper cells in the USA could easily and cheaply kill every
urban israeli within 10 years, if they've bothered to set up the
methods. Why haven't they done that already? Maybe they haven't noticed
how easy it is. Maybe they don't want to. Maybe they think that if htey
did so, israeli sleeper cells in the USA would attack whoever they
thought might have done it until they ran out of potential targets.

I believe you fail to understand that we already live on each others'
sufferance. Given that, it simply does not make sense to create mortal
enemies.

[Zeno]

... If israel depopulated iran,
iranian sleeper cells in the USA could easily and cheaply kill every
urban israeli within 10 years, if they've bothered to set up the
methods.

Why are you presuming that retaliation couldn't occur in Israel?

[J Thomas]

Post by Zeno

... If israel depopulated iran,
iranian sleeper cells in the USA could easily and cheaply kill every
urban israeli within 10 years, if they've bothered to set up the
methods.

Why are you presuming that retaliation couldn't occur in Israel?

It could, probably easily. But the USA is more of an open society and
it would certainly be easy to organise it from here. Or from france. Or
britain.

If you want revenge, nukes are expensive and difficult. Their main
advantage is they make a great big boom and tell everybody immediately
how much revenge you got. If you don't mind being less obvious you can
do something that they probably won't notice for years, when the
delayed consequences show up.

It doesn't make sense any more to talk about nuking nations as a lesson
to the others, when deadly retaliation is cheap and easy.

[David bin Bedlam]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, J Thomas wrote:
[...]

If you don't mind being less obvious you can do something that they
probably won't notice for years, when the delayed consequences show up.

Yeah, like they could use those cold/flu viruses the Powers That Be are
testing out on us through the Smithsonian Museum, that hold on and on and
are strikingly resistant to ordinary OTC remedies. Imagine the loss to a
country's GNP if its certifiable geniuses are kept too busy blowing their
noses and moaning about how run-down they feel to protect their Empire!


D.

[David bin Bedlam]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Gordon wrote:
[...]

Post by Gordon
The one thing Iran could do, but so far has refused to do is
allow open, unrestricted inspections by some international body
who could ascertain that the Iranians' intentions and their
progress is indeed along the lines of pure and simple energy
production.

Has the U.S.A. ever done what you want Iran to do?



Rhetorically,
D.

[Zeno]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:45:29 -0500, David bin Bedlam

Post by David bin Bedlam
[...]

Post by Gordon
The one thing Iran could do, but so far has refused to do is
allow open, unrestricted inspections by some international body
who could ascertain that the Iranians' intentions and their
progress is indeed along the lines of pure and simple energy
production.

Has the U.S.A. ever done what you want Iran to do?
Rhetorically,
D.

That's a spin question. The correct information gathering question
is: has any other country ever done what you want Iran to do?