In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:18:36 -0800: Hi, [snip] >My point was not about ethics at all though, merely that pursuit of >nuclear weapons capability is a *stupid* strategy for a country like >Iran.
But how do you know they are pursuing nuclear weapons? All I have seen is western propaganda that says they are. Inspectors from the IAEA say there is no evidence of it. Jut as they said there was no evidence of such in Iraq. And they were right. >My only intended involvement here was to predict possible >scenarios, not consider ethics. Ethical or not, when any state >starts an unlimited war then that war is unlimited. A point the US would do well to pay heed to. >A small power >has great disadvantages in such a war. True. >Asymmetric conventional wars >are more sensible for small power war mongers that insist on having >their wars, and of course no war at all is way better. ...and the Iranians agree whole heartedly. The only question is whether or not Israel and the US will leave them alone. [snip] >> condemned to live in? Is this really such an inviting picture that >> we should >> invite it by casual use of weapons of mass destruction? > > >Of course not. But any use or seriously threatened use of such a >weapon is almost certain to evoke an extreme response. Once again, the Iranians have never made any such threat. How can they, they don't even have any nukes. All the media is full of is stories about how the US and Israel *think* they are trying to produce nukes. To me, it is blindingly obvious that this is just a rehash of the same excuse that was used to invade Iraq. Surely any thinking American must be able to see this too? >That seems to >me to be an obvious fact. Making such threats, or even positioning >to make such threats, thus seems to me to be a stupid strategy. ...and it would be if it were true. BTW if the US really believes that Iran is trying to make nukes, then there is simple way to call them on it. Stop the war mongering (US fleets in the Persian Gulf), and then ask them to let the IAEA inspectors back in. If their nuclear program is indeed peaceful, then they should have no objections. [snip] >> BTW if you are implying that an "underground burst weapon" is safer >> than an >> ordinary nuke, then consider that all weapons designed to do this >> have to enter >> through a hole in the surface, and the nuclear explosion itself is >> going to >> enlarge this hole and spew radioactivity into the air. > >Yes, you are right, it is. Radioactivity will also be emitted from >ground fractures for years, and any water tables polluted as well. >But there is a big difference between Bikini and Chernoble when it >comes to air pollution. Underground nukes would not be thermonuclear. Actually there is an even bigger difference. Deliberate underground tests are much deeper than would be achieved by a weapon, and the hole is always filled in before the test is conducted. Consequently an underground test is not a good analogy for a "bunker busting" bomb. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
