As far as the situation is concerned, I think and have experienced this myself, that Pakistan and India both don’t have the guts to go at each other. They might have a mid-sized skirmish over the course of history, but as both have ‘the bomb’, they are less likely to do even that.
China and India are NOT on collision course. The Indian public is far more aware of the situation then to lure into any stupid war like the American public. Both the Chinese and the Indians know not to mess with each other. India on the other hand is still on a date with Israel and US, but India knows the one-night stand plan of the US. It has its trusty friend backing it up.
Also the Indian ‘superpower’ ambitions will not be aimed at Europe; it might engulf only the surrounding nations of South Asia and to some degree Arab states.
Posted by MHK3 at August 15, 2005 05:17 PM
Why do we forfeit our own plain common sense to listen to all these ‘experts’. If Pakistan were to lob a bomb on New Delhi, 10 million people may die - my family members among them. If India decides to push the button, it may be larger number of people in Pakistan who disappear from the face of earth. Which moron would want to do that.
Take it from anybody who would rather use his/her own intuition to listening to the ‘experts’: There will NEVER be a nuclear war between two governments - the only possibilies are an accident and a mad man like Osama doing something. For that we need to be prepared.
Posted by Satish at August 15, 2005 07:56 PM
It is a realpolitik, the perfidy of Islamabad and New Delhi’s evasive tactics to address Kashmir dispute that makes matters worse! Add to this relation the hyper-nationalists, coloured with Green and Saffron and you get into a situation from where hardly anybody can get out!
It did not take a lunatic to use Nuclear Weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it did not take a lunatic from Indian side to take unilateral action against Pakistan and result in it’s break! They both were concious decisions taken by democratically elected representatives! India’s self righteousness in “Non Violence” and “democracy” has been hollow and Pakistan’s self assertiveness on “War on Terror” is half hearted!
Will this bad blood result into Nuclear spill over! The dire warning is it may IF the two nations have enough hatred towards each other! They both take equal pride in perfidy towards each other! and thereby themselves!
Posted by baaz at August 15, 2005 09:37 PM
I agree about nuclear states not attacking each other. The loss would just outweigh any possible gains. The loss from it even being plausible is major enough.
About Iran -
It is becoming the conventional wisdom that the US cannot attack Iran while it is bogged down in Iraq. Iran is bragging that they have more options than the US has. Europe is saying there is no military option.
On the other hand, Israel bombed Osirak and Iraq did nothing. What would Iran really do if its reactors were bombed?
Posted by MThompson at August 16, 2005 07:23 AM
There are three competing social systems out there. Pakistan wants to set up a moderate state based on tenets of Islam, China wants to build a communistic welfare state and India wants to build an open civil society based on secular law. Conflicts between these three disparate systems are inevitable. Of the three, China and Pakistan have combined to share military technology including nuclear. If India takes effective steps to make China accountable for its nuclear transgressions and makes it proportionately vulnerable to nuclear threat it faces, that would be perfectly rational and also legal.
Posted by Silk67 at August 16, 2005 08:50 AM
To MThompson: the reason Iraq couldn’t do anything against Israel was because most of Iraq’s forces were engaged in a deadly war with Iran. And as for the Israelis bombing Iran’s nuclear reactor, it is a clear fact that Iran has spread out its entire nuke facilities across the country and Iran is MUCH farther away from Israel. Also, one of the problems with the Iraq operation was that if Saddam had sent interceptors to shoot down the Israeli warplanes, then the Israeli squadron would have been doomed (they were extremely low on fuel). And in Iran’s case, the Israelis will have even less fuel. Further complicating the fact is that Iran has bought an unknown number of sophisticated air defense systems from Russia known as the S-300MPU. NATO commanders have expressed that there is no defence known against this new anti-air threat. So the Israelis would be walking into a death trap if they decided to take action against Iran. If the operation did actually succeed, Iran would most likely launch Shahab missiles at Israel’s only nuclear reactor and obliberate it.
Posted by crazyinsane105 at August 16, 2005 02:55 PM
Crazy Insane:
Thanks for the response. I was not thinking about Israel. The conventional wisdom is pretty clear that Israel can’t bomb Iran. Well maybe from the subs it has, but I was really wondering about the Iranian response to a US bombing.
I only know what I read in google news, but it seems to me that the US is planning to be out of or stable in Iraq and ready to bomb Iran in 5 to 10 years.
But what do I know? What good options would Iran have if the US started a bombing campaign tomorrow?
Posted by MThompson at August 16, 2005 07:39 PM
Well, let’s say the US started to bomb Iran tomorrow. What options will they have against the US? Iran won’t be stupid enough to take direct offensive military action agaisnt the US. Instead, it will be more indirect. There are 150,000 American troops simply stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, they are just 150,000 fresh targets. How? Well, first off the most revered Shitte cleric in the world, al Sistani, is of Persian origin. Iran gave him much support during Saddam’s reign. Al Sistani will not be very pleased if his country starts to get bombed. What can he do? Well, considering the fact that Shittes in Iraq do EVERYTHING he tells them to do, declaring a jihad against American troops in Iraq and even Afghanistan can create some problems for the Americans (notice my use of sarcasm when I said “some”). And where does Iran come in all of this? Supplying the necessary weapons to fight this jihad. Iran has many advanced man portable anti-tank and ant-aircraft missiles in its arsenal and these things can come into the hands of the Iraqis. Also be warned of the formidable group of Hezbollah: they gave the Israelis a bloody nose in Lebanon and in doing so, they received the necessary expertise in fighting a guerilla warfare against an enemy that has air support, tanks, heavy artillery, etc. So you see, attacking Iran would not be in the interest of the US. But then again, no one can predict what the incompetent president of the US will do tomorrow.
Posted by crazyinsane105 at August 16, 2005 10:21 PM
The job of a soldier is to die.
Let’s say the United States bombs Iran:
More Americans die in Iraq. That is ultimately what they are there for, if Bush makes the decision that slowing down Iran’s nuclear program is worth it.
Iran no longer has any of its known nuclear program and there will be heavy pressure on nuclear states to not help build another.
Iran though has its own uranium so it has to build its program from scratch and it has not left the NPT yet.
The US can give up on its dream of a stable colony in Iraq, but that dream is faltering if not dead already.
Oil prices will go up. How much depends on how mad Iran becomes - in this scenario Iran is not under any existential threat so there is no reason to activate MAD on the region’s oil. But the threat will hurt Japan, Western Europe and the US outside of Texas.
Overall it look like (from the US point of view):
Slowdown of Iran weapons program: Good
Iranian targets destroyed: Good
Many more dead soldiers in Iraq: Bad
No colony in Iraq (low probability anyway): Neutral to Bad
Colonial status in Afghanistan harmed but maybe not ended: Bad
High oil prices hurting other industrialized countries most: Bad but could be worse
China and maybe Japan and Europe blame the US for high oil that slows their econ growth: Maybe pretty bad depending on how those countries react
Iranian regime strengthened: Bad
Iranian regional anti-imperialist credentials strengthened: Bad
Iran may leave the NPT - claiming it needs to speed its peaceful program and cannot divert resources to enable inspections - not much anyone can say: Bad
So there is a lot of bad stuff, but Iran would lose some headway on its nuclear program.
There is an argument that could be made that it would be worth it for the US. Overall it would not put Iran in a better position that Iran is in now.
Posted by MThompson at August 17, 2005 12:25 AM
crazyinsane105,
The impression you give is that Iran is secure in its defiance. This may not be so. The attacks can come from bases in Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait etc. If at all such a thing happens it will happen only when US & EU take a collective decision under NATO.
The moot point is whether Iran is violating international laws. In CTBT there is an exit clause, abiding by it, Iran need not be in violation. The second point is whether any nation outside the ambit of UN have legal right to take pre-emptive action. On matters of survival issues like nuclear threat it is not easy to take an idealistic stand as opposed to a pragmatic one.
The lives of everyone be they Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Iraqi, is as valuable as say an American or European lives. The idea of nation sadly enough blinkers our perspective, colors our judgment and the ensuing delusion can lead to tragic destruction.
Posted by Silk67 at August 17, 2005 08:01 AM
Well, the problem is whether or not the EU or NATO will make a decision to bomb Iran. Many Europeans don’t exactly like to resort to violence, even in Iran’s case. Maybe they are seeing something else: what is the worst possible scenario if Iran gets hold of the bomb? Will the Iranian government really hand the bomb over to Hezbollah? Most likely not. All of this media blitz claiming that Iran will hand over the bomb to Hezbollah has no backing or evidence whatsoever. When was the last time Syria, a known player in terrorism, handed over its chemical weapons to terrorists? Or how about Pakistan, a country that gave the Taliban 100 million USD in aid every year before September 11? Did they ever hand over the bomb to bin Laden? And if Iran gets the bomb, who exactly are they going to bomb? Israel has a formidable nuclear arsenal so they are out of the question. Saudi Arabia and even Egypt will rush to build nuclear warheads once Iran has the bomb. The only real loser in all of this will be the Americans and the Israelis. The US won’t be able to threaten a “regime change” any longer because the US will never fight against a nation with nuclear weapons. Israel won’t be able to become “Greater Israel,” or in other words, expand and take over all of the Nile and Euphrates. What does the EU have to lose? Nothing much if you ask them. They have no plans of taking over the Middle East and at the end of the day, they will still be getting their oil. And a bombing campaign against Iran will provoke a bigger conflict and a bigger mess right at their doorstep. So it is in their interest to see that there is no shock and awe campaign against Iran.
Posted by crazyinsane105 at August 17, 2005 07:48 PM
crazyinsane105,
Nuclear weapons are of different kind and need a fundamentally different type of treatment. Conventional equations and logic do not hold good here. It is like zero / zero or infinity / infinity, the values of such division can not be defined i.e. they remain indeterminate. Since the civil conduct in human affair ought to be defined by law, international law in this instance, we need to have a legal basis, may be of new kind to address such issues.
Let us take a simple analogy, but this holds good only partly.
If a child is holding a knife, we take it away from it. If a person is using a knife to cut a fruit or a vegetable, it is ok. If a criminal is using a knife to threaten harm, we know what needs to be done.
Government, any government, can not be trusted to do good all the time, there is ample scope for misuse of powers. In Indian Constitution we have Fundamental rights to protect citizens against their own government! But normally there are no laws to protect wrong doings against other countries.
The call is whether a state has the legal stability and competency to analyze and resolve complex legal issues pertaining to rights, freedom, justice, fair play etc.. Can they be trusted to assume and wield power justly and competently? Else, to use Indian mythology we could end up with a potential ‘Ashwathama’.
Posted by Silk67 at August 17, 2005 10:09 PM
I have a question about the US strategic oil reserve.
Lets say the US bombs Iran and invades with an overwhelming army.
Iran in this case, either bombs Saudi oil facilities or gets someone to sabotage it. One way or another, Saudi Arabia is taken off line for a month.
How much oil can the US get into the market quickly? Can the strategic reserve make up for losing Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran for any amount of time?
Also is this oil sold preferably to US consumers or is it put on the world market?
Could the US in one strike get all/most of Iran’s missiles?
Posted by MThompson at August 18, 2005 02:50 AM
If Iran were to disrupt the Saudis (say they launch a dozen Shahabs at a major oil field), the oil field will be out for more than a month. More like six months at the most. Also, if the US were to strike Iran, there would be no way to get all of Iran’s missiles. As a matter of fact, during the first Gulf War, Saddam did make a fool of the US coalition by hiding and firing his Scuds until the last days of the war. And in Iran’s case, Iran is not a full desert. Rather, it has many mountains which it can hide its missile forces. So it would be tremedously difficult, if not impossible, to destroy all of Iran’s missiles. Now, the US can destroy Iran’s missile factories, but that is another subject entirely. Also, your other question of US oil reserves, well, it really depends how long we cannot get oil from the Middle East. If it was for about one or two months, the price of gas would most likely double or even triple, but the US would still have plenty of oil. Now, if we were to go without oil for several months, we would have major problems. The US does have oil in reserve, but that is for the military in times of emergencies. So I am not completely sure how the US will go without oil for several months.
Posted by crazyinsane105 at August 18, 2005 06:20 PM
sounds like our american friends are still sore about getting chucked out of iraq and iran back in the 70’s. i wonder why they were chucked out?
meddling trouble causing interference in their political affairs perhaps ?? cant be, they are peace makers !!
aggressively proselytizing the new testament to a people who are anathema to christianity ?? cant be !! jesus will save them …………(
torturing iranian civilians with the complicity of the shah?? cant be !! americans are civilized people are they not ?? they dont do torture and rape, only savages do that !! (yeah right)
why do arabs dont like them ??
maybe dropping bombs on iraq for twelve years and starving their children has something to do that??
cant be !! its a price worth paying !!
maybe lebanon comes to mind ??
i must say when it comes to hypocricy and savage murder the US takes the cake………..suicide bombing IS wrong, things must be done the american way. drop bombs on wedding parties and peoples homes, open bases everywhere and turn every woman into the area into a prostitute, rape minors like in okinanwa and korea and then get off with a slap on the wrist, grab people off the streets and torture them, THATS the right way, THE AMERICAN WAY to do it !!
the “i am an american citizen” should be your lawyer and bulletproof jacket out of any of the above mentioned situations.
dont mention anglo saxon terrorism, its only islamic terrorism. all enemies are subhuman savages needing civilizing and christianizing (sod darwin)
it is bit rich to watch the a country with thousands of nuclear bombs, bombers missiles and tanks worried about a country which does not even have one…….yet getting their red white and blue panties in a pretzel……….
i suggest we go tone deaf to what the americans have to say…………after all if they are tone deaf, dumb and blind to others, i say we ought to do it to them……..
Posted by wazzup at August 19, 2005 03:55 AM
Silk67:
The thing about all of the bases from which the US could attack Iran is that unless you are accomplishing regime change, all you can do is make Iran mad. And regime change means troops on the ground and occupation.
At least one Israeli general thinks Iran can have nuclear weapons in 3 years and that the 10 year estimate is more or less an excuse to the American public to hold off on military action while the US is in Iraq.
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=34496&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
That seems plausible to me.
If the US can get almost all of Iran’s missiles and just deal with terrorism and sabotage after a strike, that would be one thing. But if it cannot get almost all of Iran’s missiles before they launch, then there will be no regime change and the nuclear program would be slowed but not stopped at a pretty high price, and an even higher price to the rest of the west.
This may be a case like North Korea where in truth there is only carrot, no stick. The US will never be allowed to attack North Korea because North Korea would immediately kills millions of people in Seoul.
If Iran cannot be disabled in one strike to the degree that it cannot substantially damage the regions oil supplies, the US has to decide what its real maximum price is to pay Iran to give up its right to enrich uranium. If its not high enough, it may just have to live with a nuclear Iran.
Posted by MThompson at August 19, 2005 07:41 AM
Living with a nuclear Iran won’t be very difficult. I hardly doubt that the Iranian government will have the guts to use its nuke force against Israel or the US. It may be able to bully neighboring countries, but I am sure that the Saudis and Egyptians will jump start their own nuclear program if Iran gets the bomb. Iran’s nuclear weapons will just serve as a detterent against an American invasion, that’s all. Also, Iran wants to be a big player in world events like their neighboring nuclear powers (Pakistan, India, Russia, Israel).
Posted by crazyinsane105 at August 19, 2005 05:14 PM
This is a clear fact that hindus nukes are backed by an idiot isreal.now india trying to make a cool ally with USA.Bush and his admin in fact has been sponsered by zionism new world order plan.US has a voracity of Imperialism under covert of isreali interest.Now see what happened to world super power has been hit by havoc hurricane katrina.which revealed ghastly underside of ominous poverty and usa now still tryin to make ally or enlist to India in order to kick ass muslims noted nations like Pak.We’ll “God Willing” remain Pak from your Hideous HerbaY.(acts)
Posted by Gallant-guYasir at September 11, 2005 08:39 AM
Now the situation is quite different. Iran’s not going to stop his nuclear program. A war?
Posted by stellry at February 10, 2006 03:55 PM