[lit-ideas] Re: Worst Case Scenarios
- From: Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
Replies to Omar and John:
If you actually think back to Cold War, the real
problem with balance of power was first strike option,
that is the idea that a devastating surprise attack
would remove the ability of the opponent to strike
back. Thus nuclear subs, early warning systems, and
tens of times the amount of nukes and missiles to
needed to completely destroy the opponent. Can Iran
build such capacity?
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?
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.
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?
Or Saudi-Arabia and Gulf Arab states: It seems logical
that should Iran acquire nukes, they would either
follow or seek US protection. First option leads to
further proliferation, and considerably heightens the
chance of nuclear war in the region. In which USA
would get involved to protect the oil fields. Latter
option, which Fareed Zakaria sees likely and
desirable, would drag USA deeper into region. Probably
EU too due to US lack of troops and resources. No real
choice for either as long as the oil dependency lasts.
Forget about getting out of Iraq for starters, further
think "our bastards" backed by western troops.
Or Iran itself, civil war seems to me a real
possibility in foreseeable future. Civil war with one
side nuclear armed that is.
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 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. 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?
Yours,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland
__________________________________________________
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:
