Text 14734, 116 rader
Skriven 2007-05-18 14:30:07 av Josh Hill (1146.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:43:41 -0700, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>Untrue.  A plutonium bomb casing is VERY difficult.  That's *why* K got a 
>pop and not a boom.  Whereas with a uranium bomb it's the refining that's 
>the hard part.
>
>NK no doubt got some useful information from their "pop" but until they 
>test, they don't know if they have it right.

I don't know why their bomb fizzled, but they /did/ have the designs,
which are the hard part of making a plutonium bomb, having purchased
them from Pakistan.

But, in the end, it doesn't make a difference. Even if there were only
a 25% chance that a second North Korean bomb would take out Seoul or
New York, it's more than enough, because we aren't going to take that
risk if we can possibly avoid it.

>'In the master document, Iran talks about ensuring "full transparency"
>and other measures to assure the U.S. that it will not develop nuclear
>weapons. Iran offers "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization."
>Iran also contemplates an end to "any material support to Palestinian
>opposition groups" while pressuring Hamas "to stop violent actions
>against civilians within" Israel (though not the occupied
>territories). Iran would support the transition of Hezbollah to be a
>"mere political organization within Lebanon" and endorse the Saudi
>initiative calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
>conflict.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------

>...and you believe them?

I don't think that's the real question. Iran isn't a monolith: they
have doves and hawks, reformers and conservatives just as we do. We're
popular with the Iranian public, and we know that there are voices in
the Iranian elite who have been asking why they're still at odds with
the United States when we've taken care of their worst enemies, Saddam
and the Sunnis and Al Quada and the Taliban. And Iran took /our/ side
after 9/11.

What we had here, I think, was a case of the reformers finding common
ground with the conservatives, whose main concern was American
military action.

So the real question in my mind is not whether the Iranians were
telling the truth, but whether the rational voices would prevail
against the fading but still powerful hard liners. Now that our own
hard liners have thrown a wrench in the deal, we'll never know.

>'Iran also demanded a lot, including "mutual respect," abolition of
>sanctions, access to peaceful nuclear technology and a U.S. statement
>that Iran did not belong in the "axis of evil." Many crucial issues,
>including verification of Iran's nuclear program, needed to be
>hammered out.'
>
>http://watandost.blogspot.com/2007/05/us-iran-relations-missed-opportunities.html

>
>It's easy to underestimate how fearsome we are: even with the army
>near its breaking point, we could take out Iran and North Korea in the
>blink of an eye, and they know it. From their perspective, the
>acquisition of nuclear weapons -- or the threat of acquiring nuclear
>weapons -- was a logical step.
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>so is deneying them those weapons.

Like we denied them to North Korea? We can't deny them the weapons,
because we aren't willing to take the steps that would be necessary to
do that -- stop the world from buying their oil or invade. We do have
a chance to persuade them that they don't need those weapons, that the
threat of limited military action and the limited sanctions we can
manage outweigh any advantages the weapons would provide. All we have
to do is make them feel secure. And that's what this proposal allows
us to do. It gives us most of what we want -- hell, it's a wet dream
of a proposal -- and that would allow us to let them off the hook.

>But -- and this is where I think the Adminstration let us down:
>
>'Instead, Bush administration hard-liners aborted the process. Another
>round of talks had been scheduled for Geneva, and Ambassador Zarif
>showed up - but not the U.S. side. That undermined Iranian moderates.
>
>My jaw fairly dropped when I read that.
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>You could only be disappointed if you thought the Iranians were being 
>genuine.
>
>You're projecting your own viewpoint onto the Iranians.

No, see above. And if the Iranians weren't genuine, so what? We'd be
no worse off than we are today.

That's one of the reasons this administration makes me cringe. They're
so arrogant that there's no possibility of success, no possibility of
progress. We alienate our allies, we lose opportunities to reach
agreements with our enemies, and as a result, we keep ending up on the
losing end of the stick. They've taken an overwhelming military,
economic, and moral advantage, and left us treading water in the
middle of the Atlantic. It's like Caligula sending the Roman legions
to conquer a marsh. It's like a tyrannosaur sinking in a tar pit. It's
like whaling with Ahab.

-- 
Josh

"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
that people have the right to live life as they please,
as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. . . .
The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members
do not care about the Constitution and they are the
ones making all the noise." - Barry Goldwater
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)