Bush's foreign policy working?

[Shackled Phoenix]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/21/nuclear.iran.reut/index.html

Could this be a sign that Bush's foreign policy might be making other countries realise the US is serious now?

Comments etc etc


Edit: Just found this followup article

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/23/iran.nuclear/index.html

Interesting.... Buncha smartasses about the whole iraq thing though aren't they? :P

[shutupandshave]

Who are?

[Critta]

No, I think this is proof that Iran doesn't want to end up with compulsory IAEA inspections of all of it's facilities.

They'll probably stop until after the decision is made to send inspectors or not (obviously they are hoping they won't be sent) then quietly resume production and continue their program.

Whilst Israel has nuclear weapons, the other nations in the Middle East will want to have nukes of their own for security sake. Candelstine nuclear programs in Middle Eastern countries will continue to pop up every now and then for many years IMO.

[MVB]

Critta, this is why inspections and sanctions don't work, which brings up the question of what to do about a country like Iran. Do you just let them get nukes, in some desperate attempt not to engage in wars? So instead of having another Iraq in the future, where once again we'd install a democracy at the cost of coalition lives, and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we should carry out an "oh well, ho hum, guess that's what happens" attitude and let the world become a more and more dangerous place?

[shutupandshave]

That is a very aggressive policy.

[MVB]

I'm not advocating either way; I'm asking what critta, or anyone, thinks should be done.

Remain meek and unaggressive, and allow uncontrolled proliferation (since it seems clear sanctions and inspections are worthless), or get aggressive, lose men and women to combat in the short term, get people angry at you, but prevent the world from becoming at even greater risk to nuclear war? Tough call, I'm sure.

[Critta]

The bit that confuses me. The UK are allowed to have nuclear weapons, the US are allowed to have nuclear weapons, European countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons. Yet other nations are threatened (and enforced) with sanctions as soon as it is discovered they have a nuclear program.

As I said earlier, the main mistake as far as nuclear proliferation goes was the arming of Israel. You know the American response to the Cuban Missile crisis, and for the Middle East, this is a similar situation. You have an opposed nation, with nuclear facilities within striking range of your country, they are obviously agressive (the 7 day war is testament to that) and the defense of their country is at stake.

The solution, as you say is a tough call, however I believe for the sake of stability in the Middle East it would be best if there were no more pre-emptive strikes based on evidence which is incomplete or inaccurate.

Personally, nuclear technology is more of a deterrent that a threat, any leader with half a brain cell knows that if they launch a nuclear attack, there will be sudden and massive retaliation, probably resulting in the destruction of their own nation - hardly a good incentive to launch now, is it?

For as long as their opponents are armed with nuclear weapons, they will continue to try and research such technology of their own whether we try and stop them or not. My suggestion would be to allow them to research this technology and not stir up the M East any further.

What would your suggestion be?

[MVB]

I'm not sure I have suggestions. Knowing whether arming Israel was the cause is -- now -- worthless information, only b/c harping on it or on past mistakes or whatever doesn't solve the current problem.

I think pre-emptive strikes based on complete information and repeated failures to adhere to sanctions which PROMISE pre-emptive strikes if they are not abided by might be the best solution. (Might be)

The US/Britain/Etc don't *generally* claim "wow isn't it great that we have nukes" ... as I understand it, we realize we have weapons of terrible import, and we honestly wish the world could be rid of them, but with no way to make weapons-grade material, we would rather have it in the hands of nations with a proven track record of responsibility in a nuclear sense. The initial response would of course be "well the US actually used them before!" ... all the more reason for us to understand how awful they are; that + the American people are HEAVILY against the use of nuclear weapons. That has a point also -- nukes in the hands of a democracy are much safer than nukes in the hand of autocracy. IF the Iranian people don't want their government to use nukes, or want them to disarm, the Iranian government does not have to listen. The North Korean dictator (kim sung il? I always mess his name up) strikes me as someone crazy enough to use nuclear weapons, and I don't believe that places as imbalanced and extremist-dominated as the middle east can be trusted with the theory of MAD (mutually assured destruction).

My solution is a long-term thinking one ... to remove the RISK of millions lost to nuclear war in the future, there are few costs too little for preventing such a future in the present.

I think war should be the last case possible, but I also think the international community needs to be wary of falling prey to the divisiveness caused by one nation's stubbornness. I think if France had not vetoed a resolution for UN action against Iraq, the world would not have been so against it (that is if no one else did and the UN collectively went to war in Iraq). It's not *so* much that intel was wrong, but that the U.S. and her allies went in without the U.N. seal of approval, which I'm quite sure would have been granted EVEN WITH THE wrong information had France/Germany not been acting on their own interests, and on the pay of the Iraqi oil they were receiving.

I don't think there is cause for military action right now against Iran, and I think at the current time military action is entirely avoidable, but FOR that to remain the case, the entire international community MUST act in unison to discourage them from nuclear weapons proliferation. I do not believe they will insist on having nukes no matter what if their country is threatened with economic annhiilation as the consequence. In Iraq, the uncooperativeness of nations like France prevented sanctions against Iraq from even being effective. We don't know that Iraq was not carrying out weapons programs ... we only know that if they were, they were removed or destroyed before U.S. forces arrived. In absence of evidence of them, we assume (perhaps rightly so) that there were no such programs at the time of invasion.

I'm rambling, and I *think* my point has been made clear somewhere in there. M.A.D. is not superior to no-nukes-at-all. If Israel nukes Iran, and Iran cannot nuke them back, less people die. If Iran loses it, and has nukes, and nukes Israel, the entire middle east goes up in flames. I'm sure war would result in the event of Israel nuking Iran, but the less nations with big red buttons to push, the less total casualty chance there is.

[Ummon]

The bit that confuses me. The UK are allowed to have nuclear weapons, the US are allowed to have nuclear weapons, European countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons. Yet other nations are threatened (and enforced) with sanctions as soon as it is discovered they have a nuclear program.

In a town of 1000 people, imagine what would happen if all had guns. If 10-20 have guns, this makes them a police force or a controlling criminal organization. If everyone has guns, this makes the town a likely future battlefield.

[shutupandshave]

Remain meek and unaggressive, and allow uncontrolled proliferation (since it seems clear sanctions and inspections are worthless), or get aggressive, lose men and women to combat in the short term, get people angry at you, but prevent the world from becoming at even greater risk to nuclear war? Tough call, I'm sure.
Or attack people, force people to make "for or against" decisions, and send the world into a world war.

In a town of 1000 people, imagine what would happen if all had guns. If 10-20 have guns, this makes them a police force or a controlling criminal organization. If everyone has guns, this makes the town a likely future battlefield. Interesting, I dont think you'll find many Americans that would agree with you based on that analogy. The right to bear arms, the right to defend themselves. Yeah sure a nuclear weapon is more powerful than a gun, but there are no degrees of dead.

I think what worries me, is the fact that so many countries/organisations are saying "leave me and me friends, the fuck alone or we'll do what we can to hurt you" and people in the US saying "yeah what we need to do is set up new regimes in all these countries"

The possibility that we may be stirring up a hornets nest seems completely irrelevant.

[Larsson7]

I am not that convinced that allowing Iran to have nukes is going to actually result in their use.

Iran would obviously have the sense to not make a sole aggressive strike against another nation like the US as the rammifications would effect its entire populace for a long time.

Dont places like America/Britain/France etc feel safer having nukes as a deterrant?

While I appreciate you cannot give the entire planet their own supply of nukes - why should America/Britain/France etc decide who is worthy to have a nuclear program?

Isnt it just more of the same here? Big Brother USA wants to dictate who can have or have not?

Yes - I do see the danger of having more countries with the potential for nuclear strike capability.

[Ummon]

I am not for the right to bear arms freely infact, whatever the opinion of the average american.

[shutupandshave]

It's a tough one, because I think eventually every country will build nukes...so how to deal with that stuff? Who knows.

[Critta]

In a town of 1000 people, imagine what would happen if all had guns. If 10-20 have guns, this makes them a police force or a controlling criminal organization. If everyone has guns, this makes the town a likely future battlefield.

Or a dictatorial group who can freely impose their will upon the rest of the town's population until they have had enough.

To use your own example. If 20 people with guns are imposing their will upon the rest of the population, that will cause unrest.

Either the population will become angry and riot - 20 guns cannot stop a mob of angry people or the population will find a way to get their own guns to stop them from being bullied.

I don't agree with a country that supports free speech and equal rights telling other countries they are not allowed those same rights. Especially when they use force to do so.

[Critta]

It's a tough one, because I think eventually every country will build nukes...so how to deal with that stuff? Who knows.

God forbid we might actually have to listen to what the rest of the world is saying rather than slapping on sanctions or threatening force every time they do something we disagree with.

[MVB]

If one country had to listen to what another was saying b/c it had nukes, that wouldn't exactly be an appropriate way of doing things.

Unless you advocate a situation where instead of two people discussing an argument out, both hold knives at each others' throats. One of them is much bigger, and already has a big knife; it's up to him to control himself and not whip it out and use it; it's NOT a solution to give the person he's arguing with an equally large knife and then dare them to use them if they get pissed at each other. It makes a much smaller nation feel bigger than it should.

[shutupandshave]

If you've both got a knife at each others throats (or perhaps a better analogy, would be two guys that have guns pointed at each other) it doesn't matter how much bigger one guys gun is if the smaller gun kills the big guy. The big guy's gun may completely blow the small guy to bits, but as I said previously, there are no degrees of dead.

Just because one country has enough bombs to destroy everyone ten times - it doesn't make it more powerful than the country that has the power to destroy everyone once.

The problem is - I dont like the idea of everyone having nukes. In fact I hate it. I dont trust people to use it responsibility. Also the more nukes there are, the more chance there is that nutjobs will get hold of one and do something stupid. I think there is a reasonable chance that someone will use a nuclear device in the US against the US in the next 10 years.

[MVB]

There is the rub for me; I think that Iran shouldn't have even 1% of the say of Britain or the United States. It is a religion-run autocratic state with extremist tendencies. Therefore, I think we should police who can and who can not have knives.

[Critta]

If one country had to listen to what another was saying b/c it had nukes, that wouldn't exactly be an appropriate way of doing things.

But expecting another country to do as you wish through threat of millitary force is no better - yet it is used a lot in international politics.

[shutupandshave]

If a nutjob can get a weapon in the US, the US should allow nutjobs all over the world to get weapons.

[MVB]

A nutjob cannot get a nuke in the US. I don't really care if the rest of the world has machine guns.

[shutupandshave]

That remains to be seen. Once again I fucking hope and prey you are right, but I fear you are not.

[JADezimar]

am not that convinced that allowing Iran to have nukes is going to actually result in their use.

Iran would obviously have the sense to not make a sole aggressive strike against another nation like the US as the rammifications would effect its entire populace for a long time.

Dont places like America/Britain/France etc feel safer having nukes as a deterrant?

While I appreciate you cannot give the entire planet their own supply of nukes - why should America/Britain/France etc decide who is worthy to have a nuclear program?

Isnt it just more of the same here? Big Brother USA wants to dictate who can have or have not?

Yes - I do see the danger of having more countries with the potential for nuclear strike capability.

Problem here is you get some mad man. Someone Insane that only cares completely about himself in Leadership. When He is on his death bed or gonna die. Maybe his dying wish or the wish of allah (Example only) tells him to tell his people to launch nukes after he is dead cuase Allah wanted it etc. Theres a Few things that could happen. And thats one very likely scenario.

[shutupandshave]

JAD, if you want to know something REALLY scary... do some research on how many nuclear warheads around the world are missing. Not just pussy uranium bombs, but H-bombs too.

The US has lost 11 so far (including H-bombs) and has lost less than most.

There are, I think about 1000 warheads missing from the Ukraine.... where do you think they are?

[JADezimar]

>.< You trying to make it where I cant sleep at nite ?

[shutupandshave]

Lol, no... sorry. I think the thing is - people have hated the US, UK, Israel, India, Russia, whatever for years, and these things have been floating around - and nobody has used them yet.

[Karmashock]

The fact that you would group those nations together like that shows a complete bankruptcy of moral judgment...


Whatever... Russia's aggressive actions will allow us to suppress your stupidity by revitalizing the old cold war alliances.