[lit-ideas] Re: Worst Case Scenarios
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
--- Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> USA, Soviet Union and China had dictators or a
> single
> strong executive. Who exactly in Iran with its
> complex
> power structure will have the button? How the
> possibility that nukes might be controlled by
> someone
> who would hand them over to terrorists affects US
> behavior?
*I would think that Iran's complex power structure
makes it more safe in terms of starting a nuclear war.
There will not be a single person who makes the
decision and presses the button, certainly not
Ahmadinejad. I agree that the possibility that the
terrorists might get hold of the nukes is worrisome,
but not necessarily more worrisome than in the case of
Pakistan, Russia or North Korea.
> The problem with the easy historical analogy is that
> it overlooks crucial feature of the Balance of
> Power,
> namely in this case that Russia and USA were in the
> same league resource wise.
*As I said before, I think that a partial balance of
fear is better than none. The US has not yet attacked
a state that had a nuclear weapon, nor did the Soviet
Union, nor did India attack Pakistan since it obtained
nuclear weapons etc.
> And what about Israel, one big nuke in Tel Aviv and
> the stated goal of the Iranian leadership,
> destruction
> of Israel, is accomplished. Can we trust Israel not
> to
> take the first strike option?
*Not sure. But it seems clear that, if Iran is asked
to renounce nuclear weapons, it must be offered firm
safe-guards against a US or Israeli attack. This might
in fact be what Iran is trying to get. Europe's
approach to the problem so far has been to expect that
Iran will give in if it is asked nicely, which strikes
me as a rather condescending approach.
Temu: I could go on and on why Iran and nukes is
completely unacceptable risk. Unacceptable as in
you have no sense of proportion if you think risks
of terrorist strikes at UK or anger at the streets
of Tehran somehow out weight it.
*I am not sure what is supposed to outweigh what here;
the above doesn't actually make much sense. There are
plenty of risks in today's world that we already
accept even though we perhaps should not.
> Or Saudi-Arabia and Gulf Arab states: It seems
> logical
> that should Iran acquire nukes, they would either
> follow or seek US protection.
*There is no evidence that Iran has designs against
Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states. Iran has not attacked
another state in its modern history. Surely the US
protection that they already have is enough for such
worries as they might have.
> Or Iran itself, civil war seems to me a real
> possibility in foreseeable future. Civil war with
> one
> side nuclear armed that is.
*That seems to be a rather pessimistic scenario, but
Russia in effect had a civil war with one side
nuclear-armed and Pakistan might be on the way to
having it. And it could happen in China and India as
well.
> I could go on and on why Iran and nukes is
> completely
> unacceptable risk. Unacceptable as in you have no
> sense of proportion if you think risks of terrorist
> strikes at UK or anger at the streets of Tehran
> somehow out weight it. And speaking of proportion,
> USA
> and EU are the two key trading partners to China,
> Iran
> is minor third world country that has some potential
> as a source of energy. China would seriously resist
> sanctions on Iran if USA and EU are set on them,
> just
> to make sure an Islamist state bent on exporting its
> revolution all over including Western China gets a
> nuclear weapon?
*I think that it would. Also, Iran is a country with
almost the population of France (and a highly educated
one too) with a larger territory and much more natural
resources. It is hardly fair to dismiss it as a minor
third-world country. What does "third world" mean
today anyway - anything excepting North America and
Western Europe I suppose ?
> I would also like Omar to explain the economics of
> saving natural gas to sell by generating electricity
> by nuclear power plants, given that gas is way
> cheaper.
*I'm not an energy expert but if Russia and the US
which also have large reserves of oil, natural gas
etc. also use nuclear energy, I suppose that there
must be good reasons for that. The costs of
constructing a nuclear power plant in Iran with
Russian assistance are probably low, while the profits
of selling oil and gas abroad might be high or at
least it generates hard cash.
But we'll ignore that, and transportation
> costs. So who exactly will they sell it to? EU is
> out
> of question without a pipeline, which will not
> happen
> if they go through with the nuclear plans. Russia
> doesn't need any, and pipeline to China seems
> unrealistic. Which leaves India, but then again if
> it
> is cheaper to generate electricity by nuclear power
> than gas, why wouldn't Indians build some themselves
> instead of exporting gas?
*There are serious plans for constructing an Asian
pipeline through Iran involving China, India, Pakistan
(who have also been received into the SCO) and
possibly even Indonesia. Russia would also benefit
because it could use it to sell its own oil. We are
talking Asian integration, and you're right to point
that the EU would probably not like this any more than
the US. This might be one of the major reasons that we
are seeing this crisis in the first place. See:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC17Ak03.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
