Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:59 pm UTC

Iran has revealed the existence of a second uranium enrichment plant, the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed.

Tehran made the announcement earlier this week in a letter to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammed ElBaradei.

Iran has previously acknowledged it has one enrichment plant at Natanz, which IAEA inspectors are monitoring.

The US, UK and France are set to accuse Iran of concealing the plant later on Friday, media reports say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8274262.stm

We were TOTALLY going to tell you about that.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby The Reaper » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:23 pm UTC

They did admit to it, after it was found out about. Way to go, Iran. Way to fail.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00289.html

This is not how we go about getting other countries to trust our nuclear intentions. I wonder if they know that.

User avatar
Darkscull
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:46 am UTC
Location: Now where I want to be

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Darkscull » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:29 pm UTC

So they voluntarily revealed the existence of another facility in the run up to talks, and they're being shouted at for having/hiding it (which will harm the talks slightly), completely ignoring the fact that they came clean.

I mean, obviously the outright lying is not ideal, but that happens all the time in diplomacy, and the fact that they've revealed it now shows they're slightly more willing to engage with the diplomatic process.

If the goal of the west is to come to an agreement (that iran sticks to) where iran can't make weapons, then they should be willing to let it slip a bit that they had this secret facility, and concentrate on the task at hand.
Punishing them is not going to help that goal. It will help escalte things a bit so they have an excuse to intervene somehow, but it won't help talks.

edit due to Reaper's post:
So it seems that intelligence agencies knew about it previously, but it wasn't public knowledge, and apparently not known to the IAEA, so it still counts as coming forward to me.
Physicists do it in an excited state.
m/bi/UK/Ⓐ/chaotic good
b. 1988 d. 20xx

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:45 pm UTC

Washington Post wrote:The three heads of state decided to publicly disclose the existence of the facility after learning that Iran had become aware the site was no longer a secret.

So, Year 1: Iran keeps facility secret.
Year 2: Iran keeps facility secret.
Year 3: Iran learns that we know about the facility, and quickly sends a letter to the IAEA. "You know, we mailed this to you, but forgot to put postage on it the first, um, 170 times." You're not "coming forward" when you admit to something that you know that we know.

User avatar
Darkscull
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:46 am UTC
Location: Now where I want to be

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Darkscull » Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:52 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Washington Post wrote:The three heads of state decided to publicly disclose the existence of the facility after learning that Iran had become aware the site was no longer a secret.

So, Year 1: Iran keeps facility secret.
Year 2: Iran keeps facility secret.
Year 3: Iran learns that we know about the facility, and quickly sends a letter to the IAEA. "You know, we mailed this to you, but forgot to put postage on it the first, um, 170 times." You're not "coming forward" when you admit to something that you know that we know.


Ah, I missed that line somehow.

Yeah, business as normal with Iran being fail. Carry on.
Physicists do it in an excited state.
m/bi/UK/Ⓐ/chaotic good
b. 1988 d. 20xx

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:05 pm UTC

I cant say I particularly like the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran, but I can't really blame them for trying either. Everyone and their uncle has them, and there is some hypocrisy when the US, the UK and France accuse Iran of trying to get nuclear weapons.

If power politics can keep Iran away from nuclear arms it is probably in my personal interest, and I like that. But there is hardly a cause for moral outrage here.

User avatar
Atlas.
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 2:07 am UTC
Location: Midwest

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Atlas. » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:17 pm UTC

The difference between the United States and Iran having them is that we have a history of being a stable country. We also don't have a leader that wants to violently eliminate another country from the world, nuclear weapons are a good way to do that quickly and from an aggressor's stand point bloodlessly. I don't know that moral outrage is the correct word here, I don't think many people are actually surprised about this or upset that they lied. The lying just gives us a political advantage that we can use even though no one really cares.
"I don't believe in a no win situation" Captain James T. Kirk

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:18 pm UTC

Some hypocrisy?

The rest of the world is scared shitless of those with nuclear weapons. Is it any wonder that when they try to get their own so they're on an equal playing field and the big boys beat them up and take their lunch money that they end up hiding their lunch money?

How about we get rid of ALL nuclear weapons that ANYONE has before we start crying about countries who are just serving their own interests. Personally I'm more freaked out by the prospect that the US have nuclear weapons (especially since it's so interventionist) than that Iran may one day be able to have them in ages.

Disarmament plzkthx?
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:30 pm UTC

Atlas. wrote:The difference between the United States and Iran having them is that we have a history of being a stable country.
We're also the only country who has ever used nukes against enemy targets.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:50 pm UTC

Atlas. wrote:The difference between the United States and Iran having them is that we have a history of being a stable country. We also don't have a leader that wants to violently eliminate another country from the world, nuclear weapons are a good way to do that quickly and from an aggressor's stand point bloodlessly. I don't know that moral outrage is the correct word here, I don't think many people are actually surprised about this or upset that they lied.

On the other hand, unlike Iran the US has a long history of bombing other countries through both nuclear and non-nuclear means, and unlike Iran the US has some chance to actually survive the backlash of a nuclear attack to reap the benefits.

My own country is allied enough to the US not to really fear an attack in the foreseeable future, but for many countries in the world the odds that the US will ever threaten them with a nuclear attack are much higher than that Iran will do so.

I put the odds that either the US or Iran will actually use them much lower, but it is the power of the threat that changes the game, perhaps more than the actual use.
Atlas. wrote:The lying just gives us a political advantage that we can use even though no one really cares.

I guess that's true, and as I said I am sort of OK with that. I just wonder how it looks to people in countries where Western pressure isn't seen as an obvious good, let's say China, India or South-America. Or to people in the Middle-East, who are on the hand under a much greater threat of a nuclear Iran than I am, but who are also more likely to find themselves under similar pressure at some stage.
Last edited by Zamfir on Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:55 pm UTC

Please stop comparing Iran to "other countries." When you have a president that publicly and officially denies that the holocaust happened, and vows total destruction of a nation, you do everything you can to not let them get nukes. What's so hard to understand?
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

psyck0
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby psyck0 » Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:56 pm UTC

Atlas. wrote:The difference between the United States and Iran having them is that we have a history of being a stable country. We also don't have a leader that wants to violently eliminate another country from the world, nuclear weapons are a good way to do that quickly and from an aggressor's stand point bloodlessly. I don't know that moral outrage is the correct word here, I don't think many people are actually surprised about this or upset that they lied. The lying just gives us a political advantage that we can use even though no one really cares.

Oh yes, of course it's OK that YOU have them because you're so much more rational and civilised than everyone else. It was also OK for Britain to enslave so many countries because they were so much more civilised- they were helping the poor savages.
Do you see the fallacy in your thinking? My country, right or wrong?

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:00 pm UTC

psyck0 wrote:
Atlas. wrote:The difference between the United States and Iran having them is that we have a history of being a stable country. We also don't have a leader that wants to violently eliminate another country from the world, nuclear weapons are a good way to do that quickly and from an aggressor's stand point bloodlessly. I don't know that moral outrage is the correct word here, I don't think many people are actually surprised about this or upset that they lied. The lying just gives us a political advantage that we can use even though no one really cares.

Oh yes, of course it's OK that YOU have them because you're so much more rational and civilised than everyone else. It was also OK for Britain to enslave so many countries because they were so much more civilised- they were helping the poor savages.
Do you see the fallacy in your thinking? My country, right or wrong?


Your fallacy is that MY country doesn't have publicly genocidal motives backed up by a muslim extremist theocracy.

Your fallacy is also that Britain is not enslaving poor countries right now. If they were, we would have open up a can of whoop-ass.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:02 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:Please stop comparing Iran to "other countries." When you have a president that publicly and officially denies that the holocaust happened, and vows total destruction of a nation, you do everything you can to not let them get nukes. What's so hard to understand?
Is this really incredibly different from Bush describing Iran, North Korea, and Iraq as the 'Axis of Evil'? I mean, I'm opposed to destruction rhetoric, and I'm opposed to Holocaust denial, and I think the President of Iran is an evil douchefucker, but I don't see how what he's said makes him stand out from any other political leader. This sort of rhetoric isn't all that uncommon.
tzvibish wrote:Your fallacy is also that Britain is not enslaving poor countries right now. If they were, we would have open up a can of whoop-ass.
...uh, why would we have done that? We didn't interfere when Britain was controlling India. It's not America's prerogative (nor its standard operating procedure) to aid countries who are being enslaved by its allies. Heck, we're more likely to help the allies.

Edit: Mind you, I am opposed to Iran having nukes. I just don't think that a good reason for that opposition is because its leaders have used language we really didn't like. Better to determine the course a country will take by its actions rather than whatever politically expedient jargon is coming out of their mouths.

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:22 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
tzvibish wrote:Please stop comparing Iran to "other countries." When you have a president that publicly and officially denies that the holocaust happened, and vows total destruction of a nation, you do everything you can to not let them get nukes. What's so hard to understand?
Is this really incredibly different from Bush describing Iran, North Korea, and Iraq as the 'Axis of Evil'? I mean, I'm opposed to destruction rhetoric, and I'm opposed to Holocaust denial, and I think the President of Iran is an evil douchefucker, but I don't see how what he's said makes him stand out from any other political leader. This sort of rhetoric isn't all that uncommon.
tzvibish wrote:Your fallacy is also that Britain is not enslaving poor countries right now. If they were, we would have open up a can of whoop-ass.
...uh, why would we have done that? We didn't interfere when Britain was controlling India. It's not America's prerogative (nor its standard operating procedure) to aid countries who are being enslaved by its allies. Heck, we're more likely to help the allies.

Edit: Mind you, I am opposed to Iran having nukes. I just don't think that a good reason for that opposition is because its leaders have used language we really didn't like. Better to determine the course a country will take by its actions rather than whatever politically expedient jargon is coming out of their mouths.


Well, I wasn't being totally serious about the Britain thing. I take it back.

But saying we should wait for Iran to actually destroy a country before we do anything? Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Also, calling a country an axis of evil based on suspicion of WMDs is still very different than saying "Death to Israel" just because they exist. Also, actively funding and providing for terrorists in the west bank and gaza is pretty bad news. That alone should be enough to stop them from getting nukes.

And one more point. Firing the nukes isn't the only danger. As the cold war demonstrated quite clearly, the simple existence of nukes alone is a weapopn in and of itself. Even if we didn't think they were going to fire anything, Iran would become the bully of the middle east with that much potential firepower. Do we really want that?
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
Darkscull
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:46 am UTC
Location: Now where I want to be

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Darkscull » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:31 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote: Also, actively funding and providing for terrorists in the west bank and gaza is pretty bad news. That alone should be enough to stop them from getting nukes.


Remember that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
The US has funded and provided for 'freedom fighters' in the past, and would probably do the same today if the situation arose. See: the taliban and assorted mujahideen gruops including the nascent al qaeda, not to mention all sorts in south america.
Physicists do it in an excited state.
m/bi/UK/Ⓐ/chaotic good
b. 1988 d. 20xx

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:42 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:But saying we should wait for Iran to actually destroy a country before we do anything? Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Also, calling a country an axis of evil based on suspicion of WMDs is still very different than saying "Death to Israel" just because they exist. Also, actively funding and providing for terrorists in the west bank and gaza is pretty bad news. That alone should be enough to stop them from getting nukes.

But keep in mind that for example during the Korean war and the cold war, the US has in all seriousness threatened to destroy countries too, and at moments that it actually had the capability to do so. Supporting terrorists is not exactly beyond the US too. In this context, the Iran-Contra affair is of course the ironic example.

It's sad, but threatening to destroy other countries and supporting terrorists are very run of the mill actions in international politics, and hardly something to lift your country into a very special axis of evil. For all its rethoric, Iran doesn't actually do a lot of exceptionally evil things.

tzvibish wrote:And one more point. Firing the nukes isn't the only danger. As the cold war demonstrated quite clearly, the simple existence of nukes alone is a weapopn in and of itself. Even if we didn't think they were going to fire anything, Iran would become the bully of the middle east with that much potential firepower. Do we really want that?

Nope, and I support actions to stop them. But it is good to keep in mind that this is just power politics, and not some good-versus-evil scheme with obvious sides.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:45 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:Also, calling a country an axis of evil based on suspicion of WMDs is still very different than saying "Death to Israel" just because they exist. Also, actively funding and providing for terrorists in the west bank and gaza is pretty bad news. That alone should be enough to stop them from getting nukes.
"Death to Israel" is not a phrase born merely from the crime of Israel existing. It's part of a long-standing and highly emotional conflict between a multitude of people. You can decry the phrase as an evil thing, and I would certainly not disagree; however, I think that Bush's comment of "Axis of Evil" is actually somewhat comparable.

Also, er, yeah. If we're going to criticize countries for who they've supplied in the past... I think the US might want to consider giving up its nukes. I mean, you know that we gave arms to Iraq, right? While their government was committing rape, murder, and various genocidal campaigns?
tzvibish wrote:And one more point. Firing the nukes isn't the only danger. As the cold war demonstrated quite clearly, the simple existence of nukes alone is a weapopn in and of itself. Even if we didn't think they were going to fire anything, Iran would become the bully of the middle east with that much potential firepower. Do we really want that?
No. And I'm opposed to the Iranian government for its various human rights abuses, and I don't like the validation that having nuclear arms brings. And there are other reasons, too.

But as Zamfir (WHO NINJA'D ME >( ) said, judging a country's worth based on the political language... you can do that, but you have to be fair. US has used some pretty damning rhetoric, too. So has everybody.

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:47 pm UTC

Darkscull wrote:
tzvibish wrote: Also, actively funding and providing for terrorists in the west bank and gaza is pretty bad news. That alone should be enough to stop them from getting nukes.


Remember that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
The US has funded and provided for 'freedom fighters' in the past, and would probably do the same today if the situation arose. See: the taliban and assorted mujahideen gruops including the nascent al qaeda, not to mention all sorts in south america.


And that other person is a genocidal power-hungry extremist muslim fanatic who calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.

And freedom fighters generally fire rockets into small border towns filled with civilians, as well as blow themselves up in crowded markets and restaurants with the intent of killing as many innocent people as possible. Those same freedom fighters use their own schools as missile launching sites, because they know that when Israel takes out the launch pad with an artillery strike, they will be demonized by the rest of the world for killing children.

Calling that freedom fighting is pretty insane.
Zamfir wrote:
tzvibish wrote:But saying we should wait for Iran to actually destroy a country before we do anything? Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Also, calling a country an axis of evil based on suspicion of WMDs is still very different than saying "Death to Israel" just because they exist. Also, actively funding and providing for terrorists in the west bank and gaza is pretty bad news. That alone should be enough to stop them from getting nukes.

But keep in mind that for example during the Korean war and the cold war, the US has in all seriousness threatened to destroy countries too, and at moments that it actually had the capability to do so. Supporting terrorists is not exactly beyond the US too. In this context, the Iran-Contra affair is of course the ironic example.

It's sad, but threatening to destroy other countries and supporting terrorists are very run of the mill actions in international politics, and hardly something to lift your country into a very special axis of evil. For all its rethoric, Iran doesn't actually do a lot of exceptionally evil things.

I'm sure that's what they were saying about Hitler as well. You know, he talks about a super-race, and enslaving the rest of the population, and world domination, but he really hasn't done anything yet. And then it was too late.
zamfir wrote:
tzvibish wrote:And one more point. Firing the nukes isn't the only danger. As the cold war demonstrated quite clearly, the simple existence of nukes alone is a weapopn in and of itself. Even if we didn't think they were going to fire anything, Iran would become the bully of the middle east with that much potential firepower. Do we really want that?

Nope, and I support actions to stop them. But it is good to keep in mind that this is just power politics, and not some good-versus-evil scheme with obvious sides.

[/quote]
Threats of Genocide are evil. Typically.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby BlackSails » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:48 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
But keep in mind that for example during the Korean war and the cold war, the US has in all seriousness threatened to destroy countries too, and at moments that it actually had the capability to do so.


Not quite. During the Korean war MacArthur wanted permission to nuke china, and Truman said "Hell no." When MacArthur asked again, Truman decided he was insubordinate and had him replaced.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:55 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:I'm sure that's what they were saying about Hitler as well. You know, he talks about a super-race, and enslaving the rest of the population, and world domination, but he really hasn't done anything yet. And then it was too late.
Comparing European appeasement of Hitler to a desire for consistency in the method we use to damn countries for the rhetoric of their leaders is incredibly unfair. I'm perfectly fine for damning the fuck out of Iran for its human right abuses, just as I would have been perfectly fine with admning the fuck out of Germany for its early experiments in eugenics. I would oppose letting Iran have a nuke just as I would oppose letting Germany have a standing army capable of kicking Europe's ass.

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:41 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
tzvibish wrote:I'm sure that's what they were saying about Hitler as well. You know, he talks about a super-race, and enslaving the rest of the population, and world domination, but he really hasn't done anything yet. And then it was too late.
Comparing European appeasement of Hitler to a desire for consistency in the method we use to damn countries for the rhetoric of their leaders is incredibly unfair. I'm perfectly fine for damning the fuck out of Iran for its human right abuses, just as I would have been perfectly fine with admning the fuck out of Germany for its early experiments in eugenics. I would oppose letting Iran have a nuke just as I would oppose letting Germany have a standing army capable of kicking Europe's ass.


What's unfair about it? in both cases, world powers are saying that all we need to do is make them happy with words and guarantees, and then they won't pursue their irrational goals of genocide/world domination. In one case, WWII broke out. Why are we playing the same game now?
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Brooklynxman » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:57 pm UTC

Us trying to keep more countries from getting nuclear weapons is because we somewhat regret making them to begin with. They're.....bad. Very Very bad.

Also Iran is the last country I'd want with nukes.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:59 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:What's unfair about it? in both cases, world powers are saying that all we need to do is make them happy with words and guarantees, and then they won't pursue their irrational goals of genocide/world domination. In one case, WWII broke out. Why are we playing the same game now?
First off, if you think that Iran possesses anything closely approximating Germany's pre-World War II infrastructure, you need to rethink your analysis. If you've got a mad man with a machine gun threatening the lives of everyone in the mall, the correct response looks much different than the correct response to a mad man with a baseball bat threatening the lives of everyone in the mall.

Second off, I'm saying that comparing a desire for a consistent denouncement of eliminationist rhetoric to a desire for appeasement is an unfair comparison. Iran has given us other reasons to denounce them; reasons that don't require us to treat Iran's eliminationist rhetoric as 'special' from everyone else's (it isn't). The same was true of Hitler; Europeans could have went after him for reasons completely unattached to his rhetoric.
Brooklynxman wrote:Also Iran is the last country I'd want with nukes.
Really? Are you familiar with a lot of countries? Not to be a jerk, here, but that seems like a dangerous blanket statement to make.

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:06 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
tzvibish wrote:What's unfair about it? in both cases, world powers are saying that all we need to do is make them happy with words and guarantees, and then they won't pursue their irrational goals of genocide/world domination. In one case, WWII broke out. Why are we playing the same game now?
First off, if you think that Iran possesses anything closely approximating Germany's pre-World War II infrastructure, you need to rethink your analysis. If you've got a mad man with a machine gun threatening the lives of everyone in the mall, the correct response looks much different than the correct response to a mad man with a baseball bat threatening the lives of everyone in the mall.

Second off, I'm saying that comparing a desire for a consistent denouncement of eliminationist rhetoric to a desire for appeasement is an unfair comparison. Iran has given us other reasons to denounce them; reasons that don't require us to treat Iran's eliminationist rhetoric as 'special' from everyone else's (it isn't). The same was true of Hitler; Europeans could have went after him for reasons completely unattached to his rhetoric.


I think a better version of your analogy is a guy in a mall who may or may not have access to a machine gun threatening the lives of everybody. Or, even better, a guy in a mall building a machine gun in front of everybody, threatening to kill everybody. Do you wait for him to finish building the gun?
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:11 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:I think a better version of your analogy is a guy in a mall who may or may not have access to a machine gun threatening the lives of everybody. Or, even better, a guy in a mall building a machine gun in front of everybody, threatening to kill everybody. Do you wait for him to finish building the gun?
Well, again: On what evidence are you basing the notion that Iran is going to nuke the fuck out of Israel? Did we nuke the fuck out of Russia when Reagan engaged in the same sort of rhetoric towards communism?

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby frezik » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:20 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Some hypocrisy?

The rest of the world is scared shitless of those with nuclear weapons. Is it any wonder that when they try to get their own so they're on an equal playing field and the big boys beat them up and take their lunch money that they end up hiding their lunch money?

How about we get rid of ALL nuclear weapons that ANYONE has before we start crying about countries who are just serving their own interests. Personally I'm more freaked out by the prospect that the US have nuclear weapons (especially since it's so interventionist) than that Iran may one day be able to have them in ages.

Disarmament plzkthx?


I file this under the heading "would be nice; can't happen". The basic theory needed to design a simple nuke is too widely known, and essentially amounts to "bang two pieces of uranium together really hard". The industrial process needed to get enough uranium together is difficult, but if a crazy, isolated nation with a starving populace like N. Korea can do it, almost any country can do it.

The only option I see is to hope the MAD principle continues to work. That'll depend on keeping all the leaders of the world nice and sane, which is also filed under "would be nice; can't happen".

So basically, we're just plain screwed. Last one to Mars is a rotten corpse.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby MrGee » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:28 pm UTC

This sounds a lot like the old North Korea game "Oh, yes, we've decided to cooperate...until we can finish building all the nukes. Then talks might mysteriously break down. But it's not like we PLANNED that."

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:38 pm UTC

Actually, on second thought, it might be fair to consider eliminationist rhetoric as being more serious when the country pushing it is simultaneously engaged in actions that are parallel to that rhetoric (such as Hitler saying "I'm going to kill all the Jews!" while, y'know, actually killing Jews). In that sense, I'm not sure it's unfair to call Iran out for their rhetoric, so long as it's clear that the rhetoric is a justification only because of the context it's happening in.

Basically, we take threats much more seriously when the person making them has made it clear in the past that they are dangerous as fuck.

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:44 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
tzvibish wrote:I think a better version of your analogy is a guy in a mall who may or may not have access to a machine gun threatening the lives of everybody. Or, even better, a guy in a mall building a machine gun in front of everybody, threatening to kill everybody. Do you wait for him to finish building the gun?
Well, again: On what evidence are you basing the notion that Iran is going to nuke the fuck out of Israel? Did we nuke the fuck out of Russia when Reagan engaged in the same sort of rhetoric towards communism?


This article may shed some light.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1677691/posts
Spoiler:
Skip to comments.

Hitler in the Twenty First Century:comparing Ahmadinejad and Hitler quotes
securitywatchtower.com ^ | August 03, 2006
Posted on Fri Aug 04 2006 09:19:46 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by InvisibleChurch

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Hitler in the Twenty First Century In a speech in Malaysia on Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel once again, saying that "although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented."

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime." Israel "is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence," he said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair reacted with astonishment, while French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy condemned the remarks (also see commentary from Captain's Quarters on France's reaction). The statements by Ahmadinejad should in fact not have astonished Blair or anyone else, as this is the vision of the Iranian leadership.

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago [Israel] and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotten tree which will be annihilated with one storm." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Israel cannot continue to exist in an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity without threats and aggression. If this regime stays on one inch of Palestine’s soil, it will continue its threats." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will wipe off this stigma [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world...the World without Zionism." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"If some want to misuse the generosity of our nation, and re-examine what was previously examined, they should know the fire of the anger of the Iranian nation will be extremely burning and devastating." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world. The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Now, read the next set of quotes for some context and perspective.

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." - Adolph Hitler, Reichstag speech in 1936

"....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." - Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 11

"This infection of our blood, which hundreds of thousands of our people overlook as though blind, is, moreover, promoted systematically by the Jews today. Systematically these black parasites of the nations ravish our innocent young, blonde girls and thus destroy something that can never again be replaced in this world." - Adolf Hitler

"If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Jewish boy survives without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school, it [Judaism] is in his soul. Even if there had never been a synagogue or a Jewish school or an Old Testament, the Jewish spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Jew, not a single one, who does not personify it." - Adolf Hitler in a conversation with Croatian Foreign Minister General Kvaternik on 21 July 1941

"The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Jewish spirit as the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time." - Adolf Hitler in a speech at Nuremberg, January 13, 1923

There are many more quotes of this nature by Hitler, who quite openly spoke about his hatred and distain for the Jewish people, years prior to the holocaust. But perhaps even Hitler wasn't as emboldened, defiant and openly brazen as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is today. With Hezbollah, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations doing Teheran's bidding, a large conventional military, a nuclear program marching down the road towards weaponization, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of deadly strikes, Ahmadinejad's Iran may pose a greater threat then Hitler did prior to September 1939.

Worth pointing out, as Jeff Kouba noted in a Security Watchtower briefing yesterday, is the fact that Iran's vision of hostility isn't exclusive towards Israel by any imagination.


For me, that would be reason enough to stop nuclear development in Iran. I'm not willing to risk that maybe they really won't have the capability.

This isn't about rhetoric. It's about an age-old animosity towards the Jews and Israel. The Arab nations have shown time and time again (1948, 1967, 1973, etc.) that they are willing to act on that animosity. Why should we treat this differently?
The Great Hippo wrote:Actually, on second thought, it might be fair to consider eliminationist rhetoric as being more serious when the country pushing it is simultaneously engaged in actions that are parallel to that rhetoric (such as Hitler saying "I'm going to kill all the Jews!" while, y'know, actually killing Jews). In that sense, I'm not sure it's unfair to call Iran out for their rhetoric, so long as it's clear that the rhetoric is a justification only because of the context it's happening in.

Basically, we take threats much more seriously when the person making them has made it clear in the past that they are dangerous as fuck.


Hitler was making genocidal remarks (in fact, he wrote a book about it long before he came into power - Mein Kampf) before he started actually killing Jews. Nobody took him seriously.

In my mind, Iran backing Hizbollah's efforts to murder innocent civilians is parallel enough to take action.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Brooklynxman » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:08 pm UTC

Alright maybe the last country was a bit of an exageration (there are a few that have nukes already that I want to have nukes less), however, we want to blanket stop ALL production of new nuclear devices. That is the eventual goal. Getting rid of all the ones we have now would be impossible, as the "Hey they probably have some secret, so we'll keep some secret ones too" would be played all over the place. Plus, if one country did end up as the only one left with nukes, it would throw the world out of balance as it almost invariably will try and use that as an advantage over every other nation (even the US, hell especially the US).

As it is, nuclear weapons are a balancing act between all nations who have them. Adding more makes it more and more likely that the act will fall apart.

I agree with the desire to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, but its in human nature to be distrusting and decietful (just as much as it is to be kind and generous Im not saying people are evil).
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:10 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

A better translation is "removed from history." As in "I'd really like to dissolve the Israeli state," not "I'd really like to kill Jews." Not quite as genocidal as you make it out.

"Hate is more lasting than dislike."
Adolf Hitler

"I hate flying, flat out hate its guts."
William Shatner

They're pretty much the same person.

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby MrGee » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:11 pm UTC

I want my missile shield :(

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby yoni45 » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:11 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:Some hypocrisy?

The rest of the world is scared shitless of those with nuclear weapons. Is it any wonder that when they try to get their own so they're on an equal playing field and the big boys beat them up and take their lunch money that they end up hiding their lunch money?

How about we get rid of ALL nuclear weapons that ANYONE has before we start crying about countries who are just serving their own interests. Personally I'm more freaked out by the prospect that the US have nuclear weapons (especially since it's so interventionist) than that Iran may one day be able to have them in ages.

Disarmament plzkthx?


That's not hypocrisy - it's just common sense. Generally speaking, there is absolutely no obligation on the part of any given state to be "fair" towards states that are largely opposed to their interests. Or to anyone, frankly. If Iran decides to be hostile towards the US and its allies, then the US and its allies don't have any duty of care towards ensuring that anything regarding that state is "fair".

That means, we get nukes, and we do what we can to make sure they don't. Hypocrisy would be stating that countries shouldn't have nukes. This is simply saying that specific countries that we don't like shouldn't have nukes. Ie, common sense.

Darkscull wrote:...Remember that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter...


Who cares? They can call them teletubbies if they really want to. It doesn't change the inherent fact that the individuals being referred to (more often than not) objectively meet the criteria of a terrorist.

Heisenberg wrote:"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
A better translation is "removed from history." As in "I'd really like to dissolve the Israeli state," not "I'd really like to kill Jews." Not quite as genocidal as you make it out.


Um, "removed from history" is hardly any less genocidal than "wiped off the map". You can make up silly excuses for why either one's not really *that* bad if you interpret things in an ideal way, but it doesn't change the fact that this is nevertheless an otherwise belligerent statement against the security of a state.
Last edited by yoni45 on Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Gelsamel » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:13 pm UTC

We have to remember that there is a fuckton of people in Iran who y'know... kinda want to live in peace and just want to cooperate and trade and do good things with the rest of the world.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby tzvibish » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:17 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
tzvibish wrote:"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

A better translation is "removed from history." As in "I'd really like to dissolve the Israeli state," not "I'd really like to kill Jews." Not quite as genocidal as you make it out.


Ya, still pretty evil. Especially because one actions involves the other. And still not a good idea top give nukes to that country.

[quote="heisenberg]"Hate is more lasting than dislike."
Adolf Hitler

"I hate flying, flat out hate its guts."
William Shatner

They're pretty much the same person.[/quote]

And your point is?
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby frezik » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:18 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:This article may shed some light.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1677691/posts


Free Republic is a lot better if you pretend it's written by The Onion

Ahmadinejad is ultimately a self-serving politician, and therefore, MAD should work on him (as well as the Supreme Leader and other religious clerics in the country), no matter how much he dislikes Jews.

Additionally, there is a large grassroots support for a more stable Iran within the country's young population. They might not have toppled the regime with the last election debacle, but the discontent is still there. That group is the best hope for a more stable Iran that can get along with other countries.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Brooklynxman » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:19 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:We have to remember that there is a fuckton of people in Iran who y'know... kinda want to live in peace and just want to cooperate and trade and do good things with the rest of the world.


This.

Which is why I cringe a little inside every time someone suggests "Just nuke the whole middle east" (I actually know like 3 people irl that have said this)
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:30 pm UTC

tzvibish wrote:Ya, still pretty evil. Especially because one actions involves the other. And still not a good idea top give nukes to that country.
No, no, and no. Wanting Palestinians to be in control of their native land does not make one "evil." No, you don't need to kill all Jews to dissolve the state of Israel. And no one is giving nuclear weapons to Iran. They are developing them.

Random quotation is a pretty poor argument for "He's the new Hitler." Illinois Nazis say the same thing, but don't kill Jews. Are they the new Hitler, also?

MrGee
Posts: 998
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Re: Oh, THAT Secret Nuclear Facility

Postby MrGee » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:36 pm UTC

See now I was pretty sure that Israel was made so that the Jews could return to THEIR ancient homeland.

Perhaps it's going to take more than figuring out who had dibs to solve this conflict, ya?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Great Hippo and 18 guests