webdiplomacy.net

The Iranian scientist was assassinated by remote control machine gun in the back of a self destructing Nissan pickup. Iran blames Israel, blah blah, blah...

A secret meeting between MbS and Netanyahu! The US hoping for a normalization of diplomatic relations... MbS holds off for now. A rumored reason is to help easy tension with the incoming Biden Administration -- give Biden a diplomatic layup, so he can ease up on the House of Saud.

Normalization of ties between Israel and UAE/Sudan.

Dark clouds appear to be gathering around Iran...

I wish politics didn't have to cause scientist deaths.

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:27 am

I wish politics didn't have to cause scientist deaths.

Would you prefer to think of him as the Brigadier General in charge of developing weapons of mass murder for a religious dictatorship?

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:50 am

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:27 am

I wish politics didn't have to cause scientist deaths.

Would you prefer to think of him as the Brigadier General in charge of developing weapons of mass murder for a religious dictatorship?

Didn't know he was military personnel. Developing weapons of mass murder for a religious dictatorship, well this is pretty dangerous, but weapons of mass murder are quite spread throughout the world. If they are not planned to be used, then why do countries keep developing them; if they are planned to be used, then I should worry already and Iran doesn't change much. My point is, Iran probably wants to possess nuclear weapons to be equal to Israel with nuclear deterrence.
If you ask me, both shouldn't possess nuclear weapons, I support ICAN's work on banning them, because of the reason I explained above: Nuclear deterrence means possibility of nuclear attack, and nobody has right for it. But if Israel already developed its own mass murder weapons, I think Iran would try to get to the equal ground, and kinda has right to it. I don't think this assassination will stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons since this impacts their support from the base and gives them a stronger hand on table.

Cheers to a peaceful world.

It's a tricky one, isn't it? Israel's neighbours made it all too clear that they preferred a world where Israel didn't exist, and the West spent a lot of the 20th century doing much the same with Jews in general, so if there's any nation on earth with good reason to value a nuclear deterrent it's Israel. And, as you say, it is inevitable in a world where Israel is believed to have nukes that Iran would feel the need to have them too. It is also certain that Iran, if left to its own devices, would be able to develop a highly effective nuclear deterrent. The nuclear deal that Trump famously abandoned was unable to prevent this, but may well have been able to slow things down if such a result was desirable. Biden may be considering restarting this strategy, but ultimately there's not much scope for long term success.

So the question is, does Israel accept that Iran will join it on the nuclear stage and prepare itself for a regional MAD scenario for the foreseeable future, or does Israel and her allies in the region (which sounds really weird to say, but seems to be true) take action to destroy the Iranian regime before this reality comes to pass?

The nuclear deal that Trump famously abandoned was unable to prevent this

*citation needed.

Don't confuse that I support Iran's nuclear development, I only support that they have right to think that they need it.
Israel indeed needs a strong military, and all these wars it encountered during its relatively short life proved this. But we can't say the same thing for nuclear deterrence because it's directly aiming at living factors and it's still destructive for innocent future generations. If there's any nation on earth with a good reason to value a nuclear deterrent...no a nation doesn't have the right to hold a weapon that effects the life out of war. Civilian casualties are a sad fact of war, but such weapons are especially destructive for people and for the nature, regardless they are a part of the war. Actually, that's what makes us uncomfortable with Iran's nuclear program.

If Iran's claim on the assassination is true (which I have no idea but wouldn't be surprised if true), then your question is already answered.

And also, 'destroy the Iranian regime' is definitely more illegal than developing a nuclear deterrent (which I would also oppose).

If the US wanted to show actual leadership on this issue they would be disarming and planning to sign treaties with other nuclear powers to do the same. But despite all the nuclear disarming they have done with the USSR/Russia, the combined arsenal of US/Russian weapons is multiple orders of magnitude greater than the rest of the world.

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:46 pm

Don't confuse that I support Iran's nuclear development, I only support that they have right to think that they need it.

A curious statement. Surely everyone has the right to think anything they wish.

But yeah, I know what you mean. You have sympathy for Iran's belief in their right to have nuclear arms without thinking that pursuing that belief is a good idea. I agree.

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:46 pm

But we can't say the same thing for nuclear deterrence because it's directly aiming at living factors and it's still destructive for innocent future generations. If there's any nation on earth with a good reason to value a nuclear deterrent...no a nation doesn't have the right to hold a weapon that effects the life out of war. Civilian casualties are a sad fact of war, but such weapons are especially destructive for people and for the nature, regardless they are a part of the war. Actually, that's what makes us uncomfortable with Iran's nuclear program.

Here we disagree. The primary use of nuclear weapons, from the perspective of the five core nuclear powers at least, is to prevent war. Indeed, I firmly believe that without nuclear weapons the world would have seen far more war and death over the last century. They have only been used in anger in one conflict, and only when they were held by a single power. Since mutually assured destruction has been established the fear of nuclear war has prevented even the most hawkish government risking it.

The danger in the Middle East is that MAD is not established. Iran may be confident that there rather advanced missile technology can protect them from Israeli nukes that have never been properly tested. Israel will be confident that Iran's ability to launch a successful nuclear attack on Israel will be limited even some time after the weapon is first developed. There is no certainty of mutual destruction, and as such far greater scope for disastrous miscalculation.

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:46 pm

If Iran's claim on the assassination is true (which I have no idea but wouldn't be surprised if true), then your question is already answered.

Is it, though? Perhaps Israel are buying time, but if so what they're buying time for is not certain.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:43 pm

The nuclear deal that Trump famously abandoned was unable to prevent this

*citation needed.

Nope. You may agree with my assessment or not. There is plenty of evidence out there that can support it or otherwise, and you are perfectly capable of finding it yourself. The idea that me providing a link to one piece of evidence that supports me will somehow make any difference to your evaluation is ludicrous.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:47 pm

And also, 'destroy the Iranian regime' is definitely more illegal than developing a nuclear deterrent (which I would also oppose).

Yep

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-missile ... ical-test/

US successfully test a missile defense system capable of shooting down the most common nuclear missile delivery system. Now with a possible way of not being destroyed in MAD situation, other nations can fear a nuclear attack.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:39 pm

Here we disagree. The primary use of nuclear weapons, from the perspective of the five core nuclear powers at least, is to prevent war. Indeed, I firmly believe that without nuclear weapons the world would have seen far more war and death over the last century. They have only been used in anger in one conflict, and only when they were held by a single power. Since mutually assured destruction has been established the fear of nuclear war has prevented even the most hawkish government risking it.

The danger in the Middle East is that MAD is not established. Iran may be confident that there rather advanced missile technology can protect them from Israeli nukes that have never been properly tested. Israel will be confident that Iran's ability to launch a successful nuclear attack on Israel will be limited even some time after the weapon is first developed. There is no certainty of mutual destruction, and as such far greater scope for disastrous miscalculation.

I see your point, but US and former USSR established that MAD to possess these weapons to have a deterrence against other countries. This deterrence prevented wars instead of causing them, but from Iran's perspective, someone else to have it makes them want nuclear power in their country too. If Iran didn't have an intention to remove Israel, I would support them to have nuclear weapons as having an unspoken MAD is safer than an unbalanced possession but as I said, Iran will probably seek to use them. Still I have hope that they also plan not to use it but it's deterrence, because Iran intentionally avoided causing casualties when they hit the American base, after an important loss from their side (Souleimani assassination)

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:39 pm

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:46 pm

If Iran's claim on the assassination is true (which I have no idea but wouldn't be surprised if true), then your question is already answered.

Is it, though? Perhaps Israel are buying time, but if so what they're buying time for is not certain.

I agree that this is also a possibility.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:43 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:43 pm

The nuclear deal that Trump famously abandoned was unable to prevent this

*citation needed.

Nope. You may agree with my assessment or not. There is plenty of evidence out there that can support it or otherwise, and you are perfectly capable of finding it yourself. The idea that me providing a link to one piece of evidence that supports me will somehow make any difference to your evaluation is ludicrous.

The point is after India and a short decade later Pakistan used the NNPT to help develop civilian nuclear power, and then turned their civilian programmes into military ones, the enforcers of the treaty got rather more concerned and this deal with Iran was far more intrusive (in one sense) and likely to succeed.

Iran is currently looking at removing all UN inspections (according to this: https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/irans ... 44652.html) and one of the justifications is that they suspect Israeli intelligence gathering might have come via these inspectors.

Whether that is an entirely baseless acqusation, or based on some decent counter Intel doesn't matter. Because getting rid of the inspectors means setting back the mechanisms from the treaty which are necessary for its success.

In short, I think the powers concerned learned from the failures with regards India and Pakistan. No nuclear deal is perfect, but this one had a chance. Perhaps the better chance is providing Iran with incentives to not develop weapons, but to assume it is impossible is ludicrous.

Given that you refuse to cite anything, maybe you can clarify, is it impossible for any deal with Iran t prevent them developing nuclear weapons, or was this just a bad deal?

Randomizer wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:01 pm

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-missile ... ical-test/

US successfully test a missile defense system capable of shooting down the most common nuclear missile delivery system. Now with a possible way of not being destroyed in MAD situation, other nations can fear a nuclear attack.

Last i heard these kinds of systems were ~40% effective. Even at 90% Russia has enough weapons left in the last 10% of its arsenal to obliterate urban areas.

Last I heard Russia developed 'advanced' ICBMs with little fins to change direction in mid air, dodging the interceptor missiles.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 am

maybe you can clarify, is it impossible for any deal with Iran t prevent them developing nuclear weapons, or was this just a bad deal?

Obviously it's not impossible. A deal, say, where you promised to pay Iran a trillion dollars a year for not touching anything remotely nuclear would undoubtedly have complete success. But in terms of reality, I struggle to imagine any deal that could both feasibly be offered and feasibly accepted that would achieve the goal. The only impressive thing about the previous deal was that everyone agreed to sign it. Sadly the compromise was that it did very little to prevent Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, and nothing whatsoever to prevent them developing their missile delivery system.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:15 am

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 am

maybe you can clarify, is it impossible for any deal with Iran t prevent them developing nuclear weapons, or was this just a bad deal?

Obviously it's not impossible. A deal, say, where you promised to pay Iran a trillion dollars a year for not touching anything remotely nuclear would undoubtedly have complete success. But in terms of reality, I struggle to imagine any deal that could both feasibly be offered and feasibly accepted that would achieve the goal. The only impressive thing about the previous deal was that everyone agreed to sign it. Sadly the compromise was that it did very little to prevent Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, and nothing whatsoever to prevent them developing their missile delivery system.

As many enemies as the current regime has, I'm not sure they have a price tag. They likely see nuclear weapons as a means of survival. Actually launching them would guarantee they meet their maker, but simply having them is enough of a deterrent to keep those who would prefer to annihilate them at bay. The strategy works wonders for North Korea.

I'm with Matticus on this. 1 Trillion without inspectors would do very little...

Also, even a single payment of 1 Trillion could (if not abused) change the country forever. Look at Norway's sovereign wealth fund or Alaska's permanent fund. Whereas at present all the are asking for if an end to economic sanctions.

Matticus13 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:29 pm

The strategy works wonders for North Korea.

You think so? I'm not convinced nuclear weapons have achieved anything for North Korea other than more deaths due to starvation and poverty. China guaranteed the regime's survival, combined with half a century of not invading anyone. Take China out of the picture and my bet is that North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons would have increased the odds of invasion, not reduced it. The Iranians are more intelligent and have been working on an effective method of delivery as the priority, but even so there will be a period of time in which Iran will be both vulnerable to conventional attack and too much of a threat to ignore. Iran don't have a China

I'm pretty sure that Russia would willingly support Iran if they stay on their way to disturb Israel therefore USA. Not as clearly as China, but they would be on Iran's side.