Will the future be like the fifties, in which we have to shop for fallout shelters?

We have stark choices ahead of us. It will be very costly to prevent Iran from getting nukes (and to prevent North Korea from proliferating them). It may be even more costly not to do so. And many on the left seem to have their heads firmly buried in...errr...the sand.

Kurtz says that the "Howard Dean" wing of the Democratic party won't survive Iran getting the bomb. I beg to differ. They will blame Bush for Iranian nuclear development/Iraqi collapse and leave Iran to the Europeans. The only question now is who will be the next Jimmy Carter?

It doesn't look like we will be getting peace anytime soon. If we don't do something Iran will pretty much destroy us so that means more war involvement. I really wish it didn't have to be this way, but we can't just sit back knowing countries that hate us are developing deadly weapons.

Susan:
That's exactly what we did in the case of Russia and China. In fact, I believe that Russia was so afraid of a nuclear China (due to massive instabilty under Mao) that they asked if the US would support their taking out the Chinese nuclear facilities. We said "No". Taking out a country's nuclear capablities is an iffy business. Especially if it is diversified the way Iran has done it. They've learned from Saddam's clumsy efforts with the French reactor. If not for the invasion of Kuwait, he would have the bomb now and likely so would Iran in response.

We sat back and let Russia and China get "the bomb" because, for one reason, we were fairly certain that they were not fanatical enough to use it knowing they would in turn be reduced to rubble themselves (MAD).

Trouble is, IMHO, MAD will not deter someone like Ahmadinejad. He believes, truly believes, that a nuclear exchange which devastated Iran would only bring about the return of the 12th (or 13th or whatever) Imam, who would restore Iran and defeat the infidels.

How do you use a threat of defeat deterrence against someone like that?

"Will the future be like the fifties, in which we have to shop for fallout shelters?"

No, and there's no basis for even asking the question. Iran does not have the potential for even a quarter of China's nuclear weapons force, let alone the vehicles to deliver them, and that potential *decreases* as the mullahs reassert control over Iranian society. Nor do they have the potential for the kind of redundancy, mobility, and/or hardening needed to maintain weapons against detection and attack.

In fifty years, they might have ten or twenty ICBMs with low-yield warheads (probably not MIRVed) and very crude guidance, and it'd be questionable how many of them were reliable. And that's assuming Iran doesn't change course in the interim or do anything stupid that would short-circuit their development program. In other words, the only thing an Iranian nuclear weapons program would be good for is a way for US Republicans to distract from scandals.

I assert without any facts (hey this is the internets) and based on a vauge recollection from an article I read that seemed to be very learned (see previous paranthetical) that it is possible that Iran's ambitions are not to nuke the US but to dominate their own corner of the world.

Yes, fanatical Muslims. That is might be/certainly a factor. Do the fanatics run the country or are they just the public face? If the latter then it could be that is all they want.

Which would be trouble enough considering how centered our economy is in that area, and might be reason enough to keep them from getting nukes. On the other hand deterrance worked with China and the Soviet Union - we might be advised to use it here as well.

We should at least _try_ it before declaring war.

BS wrote, "the only thing an Iranian nuclear weapons program would be good for is a way for US Republicans to distract from scandals."

Don't forget the possibility of a bomb planted in the US and wiping out Israel. But I'm sure BS considers those mere distractions, too.

turned nobody needed those shelters back then.
The shelters were a waste

BS: "In fifty years, they might have ten or twenty ICBMs with low-yield warheads (probably not MIRVed) and very crude guidance, and it'd be questionable how many of them were reliable."

Were you not recently posting on how advanced and modern the Iranians are? So how is it they are not capable of doing what Israel has done? Israel is estimated to have between 100-200 nuclear warheads, and roughly 150 or so Jericho 1 and 2 missiles. And Israel accomplished most of this capacity within less than 20 years.

So are the Iranians modern technically astute people who can match this feat or are they backward primitives? Did you, as you often accuse others of doing, just pull this “in fifty years” figure out of your nether regions? If not post me a link to a reputable source (not MoveOn.org) for such figures.

"Were you not recently posting on how advanced and modern the Iranians are?"

No.

"So how is it they are not capable of doing what Israel has done?"

Have they ever been capable of doing what Israel has done, even when both countries had US funding?

Iran is a very conservative culture at heart, even without the atavistic Islamist influence, so there aren't the same cultural ambitions. Westerners regard militaries as machines, while more conservative cultures tend to view them fetishistically--as manifestations of intangible qualities.

In other words, the leadership of a state like Iran tends to assume that obtaining something results from wanting and (in their minds) deserving it, not from taking logical steps that lead specifically to a deterministic outcome. What you have are people for whom the means justify the ends, and who are, on a very basic level, catastrophically ill-equipped to challenge genuinely powerful countries.

An absurdly long chain of implausible expenditures and spontaneous technical competence would be needed for Iran to wind up 50 years from now with 10 single-warheaded ICBMs capable of reaching the US.

"So are the Iranians modern technically astute people who can match this feat or are they backward primitives?"

As usual, the argument on the side of ignorance resorts to false dilemmas. The US invented nuclear weapons from scratch in less than three years; the Soviet Union accomplished it in nine years despite directly copying from US results; and China took thirteen years even though it was directly handed the plans and a working bomb to study by the Soviet Union. Pakistan, however, took *28 years* to develop nuclear weapons despite direct assistance from China. And THAT is just the first bomb, not higher yields, not missiles, and definitely not ICBMs.

"Did you, as you often accuse others of doing, just pull this “in fifty years” figure out of your nether regions?"

I pulled it out of the same "region" as any increment of future time, because it's a reasonable conjecture based on the available facts. The idea that people will be buying fallout shelters because of Iran, however, is just plain hilarious, and is yet another example of frenzied paranoia being used as entertainment. The fate of the world could still be sealed at five minute's notice if a psychotic Texan decided an atmospheric meteorite burst was a nuclear attack, but actual dangers don't seem to interest certain people as much as fantasies born of ignorance and malaise.

"reputable source (not MoveOn.org)"

As long as you recognize that National Review isn't a source of journalism either.

Don't forget the possibility of a bomb planted in the US and wiping out Israel.

BS: "I pulled it out of the same "region" as any increment of future time, because it's a reasonable conjecture based on the available facts."

What facts? Facts made up by Brian? If not, quote a source.

"Don't forget the possibility of a bomb planted in the US"

One minute you think the Iranian regime is full of evil geniuses, and the next you're saying they're suicidal morons. History doesn't support either judgment, and neither does any realistic assessment of present conditions.

In any event, the only reason it's even a question is because Bush has done practically nothing to secure the borders and inspect cargo. Rather than secure our own house, he believes it more pertinent to leave it unlocked and the windows open while he roves the world "hunting wabbits" and exponentiating support for terrorists.

"and wiping out Israel."

Again, you're declaring Iran suicidal and idiotic. What of their tactics has ever suggested such a mentality? Even their terrorists (as far as I know) eschew suicide bombing, and yet here you are saying the actual central government of Iran is going to do that. What is it about martial psychosis that makes people insist their enemies are both omniscient and totally immune to self-preservation? Is it fear that produces such irrational thinking, or just self-absorption?

"But I'm sure BS considers those mere distractions, too."

Yes, they are distractions. Deal first with threats to overall human survival (e.g., Russian, American, and Chinese deployed nuclear arms), and then make real efforts to address the easily preventable causes of death that kill so many every year. After or concurrent with that, secure the borders and infrastructure and inspect cargo--voila, you are now safer than at any point in American history, whether or not Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons. It's how problem solvers look at things, unlike the way magical thinkers and conflict fetishists do.

Cecil: "What facts?"

About Iran, its history, its economy, and its culture. If you know anything about Iran, then there are only two possibilities: Either what I'm saying conforms to what you know, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, and you're interested in which understanding is correct, then you should explain where they conflict so we can reach a consensus.

But since you haven't responded to my conclusions by drawing any of your own, I don't know what your objections are, and your only criticism has been that I've failed to wrap up a huge chunk of disparate knowledge in a neat little package you can digest. You don't say my conclusions don't fit your understanding, you just say you don't have one and I'm somehow responsible for that. Approaching a subject from ignorance and then demanding someone with a bit of knowledge supply in a few short paragraphs what they learned over many years of miscellaneous readings is ludicrous.

Also, you don't seem to understand the difference between information synthesis and rote regurgitation; my thoughts are not dittoed from a book or article, they're a set of conclusions drawn from the sum total of reading over many years, so I'd have to do some pretty intensive research to give you a meaningful bibliography.

And if I took the time to compile such a bibliography, you would probably demand specific quotes from each "proving" my conclusions, and then would deny they "proved" anything if no particular quote was a verbatim statement of my conclusions. Meanwhile I'd be doing nothing but filling in your knowledge base, which is supposed to be your job, and you wouldn't have had to fire a single neuron in reflection or argument synthesizing your own thoughts or contributing anything to mine.

You don't ask specific questions on specific points, so it's not reasonable to demand specific answers. What you do is casually dismiss the entirety of what is said, and demand that I figure out how to spoon feed you volumes of information so that you'll be qualified to judge what I'm saying. Well, I'm sorry your range of interests isn't as broad as mine, but when you are completely unknowledgeable about something you should do one of two things: learn about it before commenting, or abstain. And that doesn't mean you need a degree in the subject, just read one book, some encyclopedia articles, maybe the CIA World Factbook entry, and get back to me.

Just say you can't provide any facts Brian, it takes less time to write.

Maybe it will be Iranians who have to shop for fallout shelters. With any luck, they won't have time to get them built.