The Iran Nuclear Deal Non-Binding To Iran

[metis]

One need not even sink the ship.
One well placed missile would make a lot of people leary about sending a megabillion dollar tanker through. Even if the one before you didn't quite sink.
The Iranians might not need to do much more than threaten to accomplish whatever their goal is.
Tom

I mentioned the ship because Iran has not only gun placements but also some large old ships at the edge of the Straits-- or at least they did a couple of years ago-- and the prevailing thought is that they could send one or more of those ships into the middle of the straits and sink it/them before we had a chance to react. They have indeed threatened to shut down the Straits if they're attacked, and I have seen two estimates from oil experts that this would drive gasoline prices here in the States up to between $15-$17 per gallon for a while, even though we don't get oil from that area any longer here in the States,but that this still would have a devastating effect on the world economy.

 

[Underhill]

If Iran had nukes it would be no different than the rest of the countries who have them. They would not use them.

Personally I think if they had nukes it would balance power in the middle east. After all, Israel has them.

I know, I know... everyone is terrified of their religious leaders. But people don't tend to do things that will mean their end. Even if the religious wack jobs wanted to nuke someone, the notion that the military would let them is far fetched.

 

[esmith]

If Iran had nukes it would be no different than the rest of the countries who have them. They would not use them.

Personally I think if they had nukes it would balance power in the middle east. After all, Israel has them.

I know, I know... everyone is terrified of their religious leaders. But people don't tend to do things that will mean their end. Even if the religious wack jobs wanted to nuke someone, the notion that the military would let them is far fetched.

It is in my opinion that if Iran went nuclear(bomb not reactors) it could lead to a nuclear arms raise within that part of the world. You might ask why they didn't when Israel went nuclear? I would hazard to guess they really didn't fear a first strike from Israel..

 

[YmirGF]

One well-placed ship sunk in the SoH could stop all cargo shipping for quite a while because it's so narrow and it's shallow on the edges.

Sort of like the politics in the region.

 

[Valjean]

Actually using a nuclear weapon would result in a massive retaliation, and Iran knows this.
The function of nukes is as a deterrent to aggression; as a stabilizing influence.

 

[metis]

Actually using a nuclear weapon would result in a massive retaliation, and Iran knows this.
The function of nukes is as a deterrent to aggression; as a stabilizing influence.

That's MAD.

Actually it can work both ways. One great danger or Iran getting nukes is that it pretty much would guarantee that the Saudis and probably the Egyptians would opt to get them next, and with the number of rather bizarre and unpredictable behavior of so many of the leaders there, this would be a complete nightmare.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's MAD.

Actually it can work both ways. One great danger or Iran getting nukes is that it pretty much would guarantee that the Saudis and probably the Egyptians would opt to get them next, and with the number of rather bizarre and unpredictable behavior of so many of the leaders there, this would be a complete nightmare.

MAD is a kind of system stability.
But the downside is that while it tends to be stable, there is still a small probability that it could fail with a single use of a nuke.
In such a case, catastrophic system failure, ie, massive nuclear retaliation by all parties, becomes very likely.
The greatest factor in enhancing stability is to ramp down conflict.
This is where Americastan has failed miserably, ie, by attacking Iran covertly (the coup, Iraq's WMDs, Stuxnet).
In this area, Obama has been at his best, IMO.
And Hillary appears to be the greatest danger.

 

[metis]

MAD is a kind of system stability.
But the downside is that while it tends to be stable, there is still a small probability that it could fail with a single use of a nuke.
In such a case, catastrophic system failure, ie, massive nuclear retaliation by all parties, becomes very likely.
The greatest factor in enhancing stability is to ramp down conflict.
This is where Americastan has failed miserably, ie, by attacking Iran covertly (the coup, Iraq's WMDs, Stuxnet).
In this area, Obama has been at his best, IMO.
And Hillary appears to be the greatest danger.

Even though she voted to go into Iraq, I don't think she has any desire to allow us to get bogged down in another can't-get-out conflict.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even though she voted to go into Iraq, I don't think she has any desire to allow us to get bogged down in another can't-get-out conflict.

I agree, but this is irrelevant because no prez ever desires that.
Such quagmires (no reference to you, @Quagmire) are always the unintended consequences which take on a life of their own.
Hillary was & is a hawk, which means we'll be at an elevated risk of this terrible history repeating itself.
That is the problem.
A vote for her is a vote for war.
A vote for Bernie is a vote for peace.
I expect Dems to vote for war.

Btw, a vote for Trump is a vote for rolling the dice.....scary, eh?

 

[metis]

I agree, but this is irrelevant because no prez ever desires that.
Such quagmires (no reference to you, @Quagmire) are always the unintended consequences which take on a life of their own.
Hillary was & is a hawk, which means we'll be at an elevated risk of this terrible history repeating itself.
That is the problem.
A vote for her is a vote for war.
A vote for Bernie is a vote for peace.
I expect Dems to vote for war.

Btw, a vote for Trump is a vote for rolling the dice.....scary, eh?

I agree with you on Bernie but not on Hillary, although I do agree that she would be more likely than Bernie to ramp up our military action. However, based on what she has repeatedly stated, I doubt very much if she would have us send large numbers of troops back into the region or any other region to nation-build.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree with you on Bernie but not on Hillary, although I do agree that she would be more likely than Bernie to ramp up our military action.

This sounds more like agreement to me....perhaps unacknowledged because you need to excuse your plan to vote for her?

However, based on what she has repeatedly stated, I doubt very much if she would have us send large numbers of troops back into the region or any other region to nation-build.

Since we can't predict her actions, those who want to vote for the Dem over the Pub can say, "But she might not start a new war.".
I caution all....don't support a hawk just because one might change her stripes in office.
If you're really pro-peace, then support the best candidate, & decry the one who pushes war.
You can't blame the military industrial complex for your vote for war.

 

[metis]

This sounds more like agreement to me....perhaps unacknowledged because you need to excuse your plan to vote for her?

If she's the nominee, yes. I simply do not see anyone on the other side of the aisle that would even tempt me in the slightest. Kasich is the most appealing to me, but I simply do not see him as having any significant advantage over her.

Since we can't predict her actions, those who want to vote for the Dem over the Pub can say, "But she might not start a new war.".

Guess what? We can never predict which any president may do once in office. Yes, I trust Bernie more, but Hillary would be a somewhat distant 2nd for me.

You can't blame the military industrial complex for your vote for war.

Ever notice my avatar and my signature?

 

[Revoltingest]

If she's the nominee, yes. I simply do not see anyone on the other side of the aisle that would even tempt me in the slightest. Kasich is the most appealing to me, but I simply do not see him as having any significant advantage over her.
Guess what? We can never predict which any president may do once in office. Yes, I trust Bernie more, but Hillary would be a somewhat distant 2nd for me.

I notice that even though she is the annointed one, there is no significant objection to her war cries.
No one holds her feet to the fire, saying, "We don't want war with Iran!".
Face it....Dems are only anti-war when a Pub is prez.
Speak up!
Don't let her be just handed the presidency without criticism.

Ever notice my avatar and my signature?

Yes.
Mine are better.

 

[metis]

I notice that even though she is the annointed one, there is no significant objection to her war cries.
No one holds her feet to the fire, saying, "We don't want war with Iran!".
Face it....Dems are only anti-war when a Pub is prez.
Speak up!
Don't let her be just handed the presidency without criticism.

I have, but apparently you have forgotten that as well. You're really on a roll today. Maybe try more coffee.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have, but apparently you have forgotten that as well. You're really on a roll today. Maybe try more coffee.

I see meany, but I don't see every post on RF.
And so far, worries about war with Iran don't rank highly with my leftish friends here.
There's far more praise, exculpation & meh towards her than peace advocacy.

 

[metis]

I see meany, but I don't see every post on RF.
And so far, worries about war with Iran don't rank highly with my leftish friends here.
There's far more praise, exculpation & meh towards her than peace advocacy.

I think you and esmith need to join Stereotypers Anonymous.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you and esmith need to join Stereotypers Anonymous.

Just so you know, to call out esmith in 3rd person fashion is a rule violation (#1).
Let's keep things less personal, & avoid moderator intervention.

 

[esmith]

I agree with you on Bernie but not on Hillary, although I do agree that she would be more likely than Bernie to ramp up our military action. However, based on what she has repeatedly stated, I doubt very much if she would have us send large numbers of troops back into the region or any other region to nation-build.

What was excuse for Libya if it wasn't "nation building". Seems she wanted the current leader out, and was unable to see the consequences of replacing a leader that was at least keeping the radical jihadist under control. It seems that a the prevailing idea was that Bush was wrong for ousting Saddam but no problem with Hillary pushing for and replacing Kaddifi . Oh, maybe it's because there were no US ground troops involved and the Obama was in charge (from the rear). Both of the incidents were basically the same. Replace the current leader without looking at the possible consequences of those actions. No, Hillary is in bed with Wall Street, if Wall Street sees a possibility of making money Hillary will fall into lockstep with them and the consequences be dammed.

 

[esmith]

Just so you know, to call out esmith in 3rd person fashion is a rule violation (#1).
Let's keep things less personal, & avoid moderator intervention.

I really don't care if people mention me by name just as long as they don't associate me with a liberal Democrat.

 

[Revoltingest]

I really don't care if people mention me by name just as long as they don't associate me with a liberal Democrat.

Despite your infinite patience & tolerance, mods might still take issue.
Even though some wags would say otherwise, I really do want to see
this place be civil, friendly & honoring the intended spirit.