Makin' Waves

Pheww... tough issue you're starting with. I have no comments. Like, what is a peace activist going to do? What???

The report (by Sy Hersch, hardly a neutral observer of the Bush Administration) spun the story as "seriously considering a nuclear attack"; in reality, even Hersch's own facts only revealed that the Pentagon was formulating and reviewing plans for such an attack. And so they should. The military's job is to be ready to carry out any mission assigned by the political leadership; whether to carry out that attack is up to that leadership. The Pentagon no doubt has plans for an attack on Canada; I doubt they'll be carried out.

Would a nuclear attack on Iran be justified if it killed 3 million people? If you're certain that a nuclear-armed Iran would kill 30 million, I would say yes. How certain do you have to be? Go and read some of President Ahmadinejad's recent rantings, and then reflect that he considers himself to be a forerunner of the Twelfth (Hidden) Imam, who will bring the Islamic version of Armageddon and unite the world under the True Faith. This guy is very scary, and it's time we took him seriously.

Here's a good piece by Mark Steyn on the subject. Yes, I know he's a right-winger, but that doesn't mean he's always wrong.

There is a serious double standard at work here. On one hand we have the USA encouraging nuclear technology in India, a nation that has sworn to annialate Pakistan over religious difference and on the other hand we have the USA threatening war against Iran for developing nuclear technology, a nation that is in opposition toe Israel over religious differences.

Personally I would like to see the elimination of both nuclear technology and religion but that does not seem likely to happen.

But there is another motivation for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and that is national security. Any nation in possession of a nuclear bomb is safe from invasion by the United States. That is why North Korea is tolerated. The USA does not dare invade North Korea and once Iran secures nuclear technology, the USA will not invade Iran.

Israel, a nation of religious fanatics has the bomb so how is that different than Iran another nation of religious fanatics having the bomb. The Bomb is also in the hands of religious fanatics in India, Pakistan, and the United States and in the possession of the cult fanatic of North Korea..

If the United States attacks Iran, it will be a serious mistake. The U.S. has not been able to subjugate Iraq so how can it overcome a nation that is five times as large that has not suffered a weapons embargo for 15 years like Iraq?

An attack by the USA on Iran will result in a massive terrorist retaliation by the Muslim world so an attack on Iran will make the world less secure.

Allowing Iran to develop it’s nuclear technology may be the wisest decision, a choice of the lesser of two evils.

I have been to Iran, in fact I have spend a total of six months in Iran including two weeks in jail on espionage charges. They are not a stupid people but they can be as fiercely patriotic as the Americans. A war between Iran and the USA could be the spark that ignites World War III – a final showdown between the Christian and Muslim philosophies.

Both religions are in my opinion are ridiculous, hateful, bigoted and composed of centuries of philosophical nonsense. Maybe we should just let the holy idiots eliminate each other, except that it won’t be very good for the environment.

Mike - I agree with you regarding the lose 3 million in order to save 30 million, standpoint but just because someone has the motivation to anhialate a nation does not mean they have the ability and nor does it justify a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

I've also read that the complex where the Iranians are enriching uranium can't certainly been destroyed by nuclear missiles because it is so far underground... so I think Paul Watson is right in saying that to launch the attack will only make matters a lot worse and not better at all.

From what I can make out we're not certain just how far along Iran is with the bomb making.

Paul - you make excellent points but I don't think all religious people deserve to be eliminated by a nuclear bomb. That's pretty harsh in my opinion! I only have concerns over the fundamentalists and realise that these types exist in the West as well as in the East.

It's a shame there isn't a selective and environmentally friendly weapon that would only take out these worthless threats to world peace.

I am still hoping this situation can be solved diplomatically and am not convinced yet that they are actually planning to carry out an attack.

Thanks to both of you for your excellent comments.

A couple of points in response to Paul.

I would agree that in a perfect world these countries wouldn't have nukes. Unfortunately, that genie's out of the bottle. But, the fact that Israel and India have had nukes for 30 years, have in the meantime fought several wars, and haven't used their nukes indicates that perhaps they can be tolerated under Paul's national defence argument. North Korea might even fit under this umbrella; communists in the USSR had nukes for 30 years and never used them. Iran is different. The Iranian leadership has given us every reason to believe they will use nukes as a weapon of terror and the "continuation of politics by other means".

Iran has no delivery system capable of reaching the USA (other than terrorists with suitcases, which I'm not sure is very realistic). Acquisition of nukes therefore does not protect Iran against US attack, unless they also develop that delivery system. Iran wants nukes to wipe out Israel and supply its terrorist clients. This cannot be allowed.

Then there's the "Arab Street" argument, that a US attack on Iran would generate massive terrorist retaliation. They said that about Iraq; the Arab Street slumbered on.

Finally, I note that Paul thinks Christianity and Islam are both "ridiculous, hateful, bigoted and composed of centuries of philosophical nonsense". You are absolutely entitled to say this in a free country (and in fact I agree with you), but in Iran it would earn you a death sentence. For that reason, it's not fair to tar all religions with the same brush; in fact, it's fair to say that these days only the Muslims will kill you for it. For the record, I'm not religious at all.

Just showing you my support and that i found your page. and yeah, they were talking about this on sat night live and although trying to be funny, nuclear war is f*ing scary. no thank you and in the words of geoffrey "you can go now".

Hello all,
Firstly excuse me for my bad English. I'm just going to do a short comment and not an analysis of the situation, this issue is too damn complicated.

So what's this conflict really about? Is it war for oil? West vs.East? Christianity vs. Islam? Or the old terrorist threat?

I think the Western Intelligencies and Moussad have failed in not discovering these underground uranium enrichment fascilities in the early phase. If they had found out the plans earlier maybe it would have been "easy" to stop the Iranian plans.

Sure there must have been signs. And what role plays the Russians? Can they convince the Iranians to not make nukes?

sure it would be great if nobody had any nukes. However the U.S foreign policy of pre-emptive strikes with the aim of controling what is left of the worlds resources gives likely targets a reason for arming themselves in defence. It seems ridiculous to me for a country who has nukes - and USES them on CIVILIAN populations, to attack another country because they may be trying to build them to defend themselves.

It's not actually complicated.

Long term answer: Fissile Materials ban. (aim high, activists)

Short term answer: Maybe it's just "a contingency plan," but that's all the more reason to ensure the peace movement is pre-emptive and pro-active in ensuring it is never anything BUT a contingency plan. Head off a coalition. Get the NATO allies to declare NOW they won't cooperate in a nuclear strike on Iran.

I think this quote from the original New Yorker article cited gets to the heart of the matter:
"The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”
The question is how far the Bush administration is prepared to go...

I really like the Norwegian environmental organisation Bellona's websites on nuclear power. If you think there has only happened ONE( Chernobyl) big nuclear disaster in our time you're wrong. There are lots of heavily radioctive contaminted places in Russia, for example the Mayak. Check out their website! here's an article about the Iran crisis:

http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/nuke-weapons/nonproliferation/42735.html