Text 1186, 221 rader
Skriven 2006-06-01 16:58:00 av Robert E Starr JR (1632.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <UNIfg.43902$Lm5.17218@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
@REPLY: <mbul72l385asn52fk8ncp3s49hs61e57gl@4ax.com>

"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message 
news:d4cu72do81p6m56ameakdtiku3q5v3o1d8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:13:58 +0000 (UTC), "Vorlonagent"
> <jt@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Harper" <paul@harper.net> wrote in message
>>news:bq3t72ltritun0c9eeplnnkc6ppeg8kqjs@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>20 years ago we were sure that civilization would zie in a nuclear
>>>>exchange
>>>>too.
>>>
>>> When did we achieve certainty that we won't? All that's happened in
>>> that the definition of the "bad guys" has changed (well, actually,
>>> *my* definition of the bad guys hasn't - bad guys are people who use
>>> WMDs, not those who merely threaten to - but let's not go there).
>>
>>You don't seriously believe that the threat of global nuclear war is the
>>same now as in 1980, do you?
>
> That's not what you said. You said "civilisation would die in a
> nuclear exchange". It wouldn't take a global nuclear war for this to
> happen. A heated exchange between Israel and Iran would drag in The US
> on one side and probably China or Russia on the other, or do you
> seriously think they'll stand back and let the US defend Israel with
> Nukes?!

I said "we were sure civilization would zie in a nuclear exchange"  (with 
"zie" as a typo.  Should have been "die".  My bad)

How likely is this horror scenario you paint?  You make ssveral assumptions.

1) That Iran will aquire nuclear weapons

2) That a nuclear exhange will occur between Iran and Israel

3) That any such exchange would require a nuclear response from the US in 
support of Israel as well as a requiring nuclear response from Russia or 
China supporting Iran.


The possibilities get more and more unlikely as we go down the line.

1) Given that the international comunity has taken a very flabby and 
appeasment-style approach to Iran's nuclear ambitions, it's likley that Iran 
will get nuclear weapons barring military action from the US, Israel or 
both.


2a) It's possible that Iran will launch a nuclear sneak attack on Israel, 
though not possible until Iran has enough bombs for offensive use, say 30 or 
so.  How long will that take them?  I'd take a guess at about 10 years.  The 
rulers of that country are potentially crazy enough.  Exactly HOW crazy is a 
crucial point.  Mideast culture is awash in machismo.  Quite often arad 
bluster ends up being that of a bully who folds the first time he is punched 
in the nose.  (unless we give them a track record of previous successes in 
which case we have a fight on our hands) Separating bluster from true intent 
is difficult on a good day.  The West and especially Europe has often made 
no distinction.

2b) What would the state of missile defense be at the point where Iran could 
launch a first-strike?  It's possible that Israel would have adequate 
interception technology to handle 30 missile launches.  How possible is an 
open question that I don't have an answer to.

2c) It is unlikley for Israel to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on 
Iran.  If Israel is going to undertake unilateral action against Iran it 
will be to keep Iran from having nukes to begin with.  If Iran gets nukes, 
the most likley circumstances for an Israeli first-strike would stem from a 
high-deathcount WMD attack on Israel (say a terrorist nuclear explosion in 
an Israeli city) where Israel either fingers Iran or is so enraged that it 
just doesn't care.


3a) Israel is commonly credited with having about 100 nuclear warheads.  Why 
the hades would the US *need* to intervene?  Does Iran even have 100 valid 
nuclear targets?  The israeli arsenal should be enough to do the job.

3b) How *could* the US intervene (in a nuclear manner) to support Israel? 
If Israel pushes its button, their warheads will be exploding in Iran within 
5 minutes.  Unless Israel and the US collude to create a simultaneous "time 
on target" strike where US missiles launch significantly in advance in 
advance (and in full radar-view of Europe and Rissia) The US would be in a 
completely reactive stance.  Launching any ballistic missiles at Iran would 
immidately cause the Russians to reach for their own button.  That of itself 
should restrain any missile-based nuclear support the US might care to lend 
if Israels' own resoruces somehow fall short.

3c) That still leaves cruise missiles and such, of course, but the US would 
have to admit at some point to using nuclear weapons.  There is currently a 
lot of social pressure against this.  Bush did not get a warm reception to 
floating the idea of nuclear "bunker busters" back in 2003.  With there 
being no actual need for US nukes, they would almost certainly not be used. 
The US might use conventional weapons to cripple iranian radar, jet fighters 
and such, but that wouldn't be grounds for a nuclear response from Russia or 
China.

3d) Why the hades would Russia or China support Iran with nukes?  What 
national interest would it serve?  China wants Iranian oil and has some 
"enemy of my enemy" attraction for any foe of the US.  That's about it. 
Launching nukes at Israel or the US isn't going to get them a extra drop of 
Iranian oil and launching at the US would put them in a direct confrontation 
with the US whereupon MAD issues should restrain action. Launching on Israel 
wouldn't likely be worth the cost of the missiles.  It's possible that 
either power could be trying to curry favor with mideast arabs but such 
favor is notoriously fickle and with additional fallout floating over the 
mideast, one wonders what real advantage nuking Israel would give.

3e) Russia wants to sell stuff to Iran and always wanted a mediterranean 
seaport.  With iran devestated by Israeli nukes ,the first loses all meaning 
and the second is more a pretext for an invasion than launching nuclear 
weapons in support for the iranian government.


> I very much doubt that Europe would survive the fallout from such an
> exchange, and certainly none of the Middle East. That might not bother
> you much but it's my back yard - it bothers me, and as far as I am
> concerned, civilisation would have ended!

For all the above reasons, I think you're worried about something so 
unlikley as to be rendered trivia.

Indeed the best way to avoid the nightmare you spin is to engage in a little 
principled violence NOW to eliminate the possibility of an Iranian nuke, up 
to and including bombing the crap out of Iran's nuclear reactors and 
centrefuge sites.  That would relieve your fears in one fell swoop.


>>>>To approximately quote Kirk from Star Trek 6, we haven't run out of
>>>>history
>>>>just yet.
>>>
>>> I didn't say we had. What I did say is that it won't be long if we
>>> continue to sit around doing absolutely nothing about a situation that
>>> is of our own species' arrogant making. We're not taking
>>> responsibility for our ancestors mistakes, we're continuing down the
>>> same path they took, too afraid and too selfish to stop and realise
>>> that this isn't a rehearsal.
>>
>>That's your opinion, which you hold for reasons that make sense to you.
>
> Yup. I want a viable, liveable future for my kids and their kids.
>
>>For reasons that make sense to me, I don't agree that there IS a threat 
>>much
>>less that the threat is apocalyptic in nature.  I maintain that the 
>>results
>>are too preliminary to make a decision and that no rush to judgement is
>>indicated by the thin gruel of facts that aren't in dispute.
>
> I (genuinely) would have more sympathy for that position if the
> solutions being proposed for the problems that you see as "too
> preliminary to make a decision on" were in some way bad.

Are they "good" enough to warrant imposition by force?  That's what you're 
advocating.  I say no.


> They're not. The very worst case (or best case, depending upon your
> pov) if we on the "environmentally worried" side are completely and
> totally wrong, is that money has been spent where it didn't need to
> be, and the air and rivers are cleaner than they used to be.

...which is already happening.  I look out my window in CA's Central Valley 
and I can see the Sierras, which aren't more than 20-30 miles off  (30-40km 
to you).  In the 80's and 90s I couldn't see them on most days and was able 
to see them in the 60's and 70's.  The air hereabouts anyway *is* getting 
better already.  This is generally true for US output of  most pollutants, 
with the exception of CO2, which is only a "pollutant" if you buy into 
human-caused global warming which I don't.

So where's the need for force on on a grand scale?


> That's it. That's the total down-side to being careful if the
> environmentalists are completely wrong.

The downside depends on what, exacty is being proposed.

What ARE you proposing exactly?


> What's the down-side to the other side being completely wrong?
>
> Which is the better of the two downsides?
>
> Wanna gamble?

No.

I want proof before I approve of large-scale action.  I'm funny that way.

You've given me nothing of the sort, only can-we-afford-to-be-wrong 
alarmism.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
                        
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)