A Nuke in Every Garage, a Chicken in Every Pot

As campaign slogans go it needs work, but the notion that a vote for Hashemi Rafsanjani is a vote for a nuclear Iran is unmistakable in the advice offered by one imam.

Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hasani is quoted in one dispatch as telling Iranian voters: "You need to vote for Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. This way we will finally be able to have for ourselves the atomic bomb to fairly stand up to Israeli weapons."

Hasani continued:

"Freedom, democracy and stupidities of this type cannot be carried over to any part, and these concepts are out of sync with the principles of Islam," said Hasani, the imam who led Friday prayers in the main city of western Iranian Azerbaijian.

"Islam always spoke with the sword in the hand and I don't see why now we have changed attitudes and talk with the other civilizations."

Ah, yes the soft on other civilizations card. A sleeper issue.

Comments

[cdunlea]

Before these people go developing nuclear weapons, they might try developing toilet paper. Trust me, having a clean ass can do more for your day-to-day happiness.

[Mark B.]

Looking beyond the usual Islamic rhetoric, it's not very surprising that Iran wants to develop nukes. They have a nuclear-armed Pakistan to the east, a bunch of old Russian warheads to the north and a hostile Israel to the west, now joined by the biggest nuclear power of them all in Iraq. If I was a mullah, I'd see a lot of reasons to have my own A-bombs and not much to argue against it.

It's easy to portray the Iranian leadership as a bunch of fanatical diaper-heads, but the US and Soviet Union were often not models of sweet reason about their nuclear arsenals, either. Underneath the public ranting I think that there's a lot of cool calculation going on, as well as assessments of the likely geopolitical consequences.

[rob]

Hmmm... Sounds like they want to be treated like Saddam was by the Israelis:

"In 1981, Israeli fighters conducted a low-level, 700-mile, daylight raid through Saudi Arabian and Jordanian air space into Iraq. In a minute and a half, the fighters laid waste to the French-supplied Osiraq nuclear reactor - the centerpiece of Iraq's burgeoning nuclear-weapons program." http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Brookes_092904,00.html

That's assuming the U.S. doesn't do it first.

[Henry]

Compare and contrast the fates of N. Korea and Iraq. Which fellow axis-of-evil member's fate would you chose?

Now you know all you need to know about the value of obtaining nuclear weapons.

And if the Israelis or US do mount such an attack, good luck with that "new Middle East" agenda--you've just signed the death warrant of every moderate movement in the region. At some point, regardless of actual intent, the perception that the "war on terror" has become just an euphamism for neutering and humiliating Islamic nations begins to bear a plausible enough resemblence to the facts on the ground to make life VERY difficult for moderates.

I hate the idea of a nuclear Iran, but it's gonna be a real bitch to prevent without a LOT of collateral damage.

As an aside, if people are being urged to vote for candiate "A" instead of candidate "B" because there is a genuine difference between them, isn't that some minimal form of democracy already? (readily acknowledging that the difference between "A" and "B" may not seem that significant to outsiders like us--both are horrible)

[carabinieri]

um, right.

[Dynamist]

The Euro-American world has appointed itself as parent of Iran. It seems contradictory to regard something as sovereign and then expect it should follow external command. If Iran, or PRK, or any widely-recognized nation is able to develop or cajole its way into possession of nuclear weapons, that's their "right".

Non-proliferation sound to me much like the campaigns to keep kids away from drugs and sex. Those that want will find a way. It might make more sense to spend resources on coping with what seems an inevitability. Let's give Iran information on "safe nuking", and make clear the consequences of using what they will soon have.

[thoreau]

a nuke in every garage

For a moment I thought this was going to be another one of those threads on just how far the second amendment really goes.

[kwais]

Dynamist,
maybe the inevitable result of Iran having nucular weapons is a mushroom cloud over Tehran, after they have done something that provokes it.

Sometimes you tell some one not to do something and you tell them what will happen and then because of the way they are you just end up watching them do it.

Iran has been at war with us for 30 years, and we have never recognized it.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

That's assuming the U.S. doesn't do it first.

Better get some beeeeeeeeeg bunker busters this time. Them guys got smerter. They went underground.

[Dynamist]

kwais: I agree with your post, but whatever the west does seems to me will only delay Iran getting the nuclear option. We can't prevent it forever. Maybe delaying will work, if you have faith that cultural forces will overturn the regime there sufficently quickly. Or if culture doesn't work fast enough, you're willing to "encourage freedom" through paramilitary, proxy, or direct military force. I guess if everyone agreed that we're really at war (attacking our embassy seems like an act of war to me) then military force is indicated, although not presently possible.

[rob]

Nobody said it would be easy. The question is, how far is the rest of the world willing to go to prevent Iran from getting nukes?

I'm willing to bet that's pretty far, considering how dangerous a nuclear power governed by religious fanatics inevitably bent on a world hegemony under their version of Islam is.

[I shot my mom with autohamster]

There is a strong discontent about the "mullah-managed democracy" in Iran - but the nuke-building has real popular support there. The guys from Iran I know are saying: "this is a complete lie and double standard accusing Iran of developing nukes and we need to defend ouselves against Israel and US." The contradiction does not strike them.

Also, the ruling fanatics in Iran are actualy a lot less fanatical than West is trying to portrait them. They can be reasoned with - in the same way Soviets were. In cold-war terms.

[Ruthless]

The urge for a nuke is no different than calls for more cops. No different than the urge to declare a war on drugs, poverty... whatever.
Even despotic leaders know this is the logic of their people.
None of these weapons and wars accomplish what they were expected to, but the majority of the people still want more, more.
... Also similar to wanting to always spend more for public education.

[hey]

nuke them. nuke all possible or suspected development facilities, all executive leadership facilities, all military facilities. then see if they want more. but have to do it before they get da nukes.

[rob]

Now I'm not sure who's scarier - Iran or hey! Heh...

[quasibill]

It's funny - the Iranian people (especially youth) want to get rid of these idiots - the polls show that a large majority of youth are in favor of 'westernization'.

However, the same polls show that every time the international community demands concessions on nukes, these same young ones rally around their national identity and support "strong leader" types.

Just like in everything else - government action in foreign relations is rife with unintended consequences.

[Ruthless]

"Now I'm not sure who's scarier - Iran or hey! Heh..."

rob,
It's a good thing Hit and Run doesn't come with some intervention mechanism. In the long run, that's why Hit and Run is good for society, and will easily overcome the "hey's" of the world.
In diplomatic terms, persuasion with no power nor inclination to intervene easily trumps carrot and stick.

[joe]

"nuke them. nuke all possible or suspected development facilities, all executive leadership facilities, all military facilities. then see if they want more. but have to do it before they get da nukes."

...because otherwise, things could get ugly.

What's most worrisome is that the Iranian's desire to nuke up isn't irrational in any way. It's inevitable, and we'd do exactly the same thing in their place.

The only way to prevent nuclear arsenals from becoming as common as tank battalions is the global abolition of nuclear weapons. We either accept that a few dozen more countries will develop nukes by the end of this century, or we adopt the universal, verifiable, enforceable prohibition of all nuclear weapons (including, eventually, our own) a major plank in our foreign policy, and persuade all of our allies and all other nuclear powers to do the same.

[Ruthless]

Sort of agreeing with joe:
What's a nuke good for?
It's just a big shock and awe device with even worse hangover effects than the US shock and awe tactic in Iraq.

[kwais]

Well, yeah, if we could get rid of all the nukes in the world, That would be great. Who wouldn't like that?

I mean, we probably aren't going to ever ever use nukes unless they have been used against us.

We don't really need nukes, we are so rich and have so much technological superiority that we can pretty much wreak havoc with near impunity on any nation on earth. I mean the only reason we are having trouble in Iraq is because we want to save them. If we just wanted to kill them and take their oil, we'd have been don long ago.

The nuke is really the poor man's weapon. "God made man but Colt made them equal". Well nukes are the big equalizer.

I guess even still nukes are not an equalizer. Iran would have to have thousands of nukes and the ability to deliver them. They could hurt us, but we can kill them in an instant. And the world would be a horrible place to be in those times.

[joe]

You two are going at it all wrong. Nuclear policy isn't about battlefield calculations. Countries don't use nuclear weapons on battlefields.

Countries don't seem to use nuclear weapons at all. Or rather, they use them for deterrence.

kwais asks, who wouldn't want to get rid of all the nukes? Pervez Musharriff wouldn't want that. Many of the highest-ranking civilian and military people in America wouldn't want that. Deterrence has worked incredibly well for America.

Until very recently, a strong argument could be made that the weaponizing of nuclear technology has been a net benefit to our national security. I've always considered this argument morally repugnant, but at least it's internally logical. Even as we hate nukes, it hasn't been clear that it's been in our rational self interest to seriously do anything abou them. Maybe some nonproliferation work, but nothing that would reduce the power we enjoy under the status quo. But I think events have made it clear that the old calculus doesn't apply anymore.

We're not going to be able to stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology, as long as there is an industry devoted to it anywhere on earth. Nunn-Lugar and the Bush initiative are delaying actions at most.

The American nuke arsenal is the most important factor in international politics. It has played a central role in advancing our interests in foreign and military policy (however those have been defined over time). And now that the world has changed, it's time to use it as leverage to achieve the central national security goal of our time - security from nuclear terror. You can't stop nuclear terror by putting missiles in Turkey, but you might be able to stop it entirely by dismantling the nuclear weapons programs of every country on earth.

Take that the UN, Bolton.

[Ruthless]

Nukes are like wimmin: Ya can't live with 'em. Ya can't live without 'em.

It seems almost inevitable though that, one day, one will go off. That will, hopefully blow off enough dicks plus the lesson learned, may, after that, be that nukes aren't so desirable after all.
By that time, any surviving males, after a few years, will begin to lust after the Ultimate Death Ray Black Box.

[andy]

"It seems almost inevitable though that, one day, one will go off. That will, hopefully blow off enough dicks plus the lesson learned, may, after that, be that nukes aren't so desirable after all.
By that time, any surviving males, after a few years, will begin to lust after the Ultimate Death Ray Black Box."

Don't know if you got the memo, but atomic weapons have been used against people... twice, actually. People know how devestating they are, but that doesn't lead people/nations to not want them.

[Ruthless]

"Don't know if you got the memo, but atomic weapons have been used against people... twice, actually. People know how devestating they are, but that doesn't lead people/nations to not want them."

andy,
Don't know if you got the memo, but Prohibition was repealed.

If the War on Drugs were a snake, he would have bit you on the ass.

What has Government done to me LATELY?

[Ruthless]

"People know how devestating they are, but that doesn't lead people/nations to not want them."

The more devastating they are, the more folks want them.

I thought I had already established that.

Whatever.
Hello, etc.

[joe]

To your health, Ruthless. Clink.

[narciso]

Seeing how both Iran and Iraq, used the missiles, supplied from all over the world; from the Belgian
ammo cartel, to French, Russian, Indian, Argentine
Brazilian, sources (see Timmerman's Fanning the
Flames) the battle of the cities, Halabja and a
dozen other atrocities; carried by the Republican
Guards; Pasdaran, et al; I hold little confidence;
that thyey wouldn't use these weapons; or transfer these weapons to factions who would; the
Al queda faction of Saad bin Laden and Col Sief
Al Adel; or Mugniyeh's Hezbollah; comes to mind;
We are now strategically close to Bushehr, which
is just the other side of the Shatt al Arab; and
Natanz; is probably within striking distance; so
what are we waitng for.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

This whole discussion is moot. The space aliens behind the "creative design" theory are going to descend from the heavens and take all our nuclear toys away.

The aliens will also abolish the money system, and everything will be free.

[thoreau]

Mr. Nice Guy-

I wonder how fundies would react if you wanted your theory taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

thoreau:

The fundies would have to accept my teachings. From what I understand, they don't specify who/what the "creator" is in "creative design", so it could be anything. So I'm going to clear it up right now: space aliens.

[thoreau]

they don't specify who/what the "creator" is in "creative design", so it could be anything. So I'm going to clear it up right now: space aliens.

&ltsarcasm>
The most glaring weakness in intelligent design has always been the gaps in our knowledge of the designer. By plugging this important gap you have made the theory air-tight. Bravo!
</sarcasm>

[joe]

Mr. Nice Guy didn't tell us where the aliens came from. That's a gap. A gap, I tells ya! So obviously, his theory can't be true.

Accurate theories emerge as fully formed as Adam in the Garden.

[God of the Gaps]

All hail the newly discovered Alien Overlord of the Gaps!