talkpolitics | Entries tagged with nukes

mahnmut.livejournal.com

Here's the situation in a nutshell.

Israel says Iran is trying to develop a nuclear technology because it wants to create a nuclear weapon.

Iran says it is trying to develop a nuclear technology because it wants to make electricity.

Thus, the international community believes Iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon.

Iran says Israel has killed its nuclear scientists to prevent Iran from advancing their nuclear technology.

Israel says it has not killed Iranian nuclear scientists and Iran is imagining things.

Thus, the international community believes Israel is not killing scientists.

Israel says Iran is instructing terrorists to kill Israeli diplomats in retaliation of the killing of the nuclear scientists.

Iran says it is not instructing terrorists to kill Israeli diplomats, but it's still angry for the killed scientists.

Thus, the international community believes Iran is the chief exporter of terrorism in the world.

Q. Interesting. Does Israel kill Iranian nuclear scientists or not? Does Israel secretly raid Iranian nuclear facilities - or not? Does that make Israel the other chief exporter of terrorism in the world, or not? Does Iran instruct terrorists to kill Israeli diplomats - or not? And whose side is the international community on? (I'm not asking about the US, that's a whole other story).

Meanwhile, Turkey is rubbing hands in delight seeing itself as the big winner, as its influence grows while Iran is bickering with Israel, Saudi Arabia is bickering with Iran, Iran's buddy Syria is losing ground under its feet, Russia is being the world's douchebag, China is flexing economic/diplomatic muscle, and Egypt is out of the game for the time being, Iran's buddies from the Muslim Brotherhood waiting to take over there. Iraq is falling under increasing Iranian influence, Afghanistan is nowhere near peace, Pakistan is failing to deal with the Taliban, nationalism is rising in Central Asia much to Russia's and China's displeasure and Turkey's pleasure, and the rest of us are left scratching our heads wondering if all of this shouldn't get nuked from orbit and we shouldn't go home and have a drink. Interesting times?

ddstory.livejournal.com

Iran is far from being a homogeneous society and a united regime, contrary to what some people might think. In fact it's a very complex society, and its political landscape is defined by strong internal contradictions. On one side, it's a theocracy - ruled by the supreme clergy. And most of all, by ayatollah Khamenei, who seems incapable of compromises. President Ahmadinejad is more like his political rival than ally, and it's unclear how far exactly his power stretches. On the other hand, the power of the regime rests upon the Revolutionary Guard, an institution whose influence has practically turned Iran into a quasi-military dictatorship. There are strong discrepancies within the camp of the ayatollahs too.

The pro-reformist bloc which includes the former presidential candidate Hussayn al-Musawi and former president Mohammad Khatami, are also opposed to Ahmadinejad. The camp of the clerics is torn by internal power struggles and ideological discord. All that said, nominally, and to a great extent practically, the main power is in the hands of ayatollah Khamenei, who never misses a chance to demonstrate that. Besides, the mass protests in Tehran (interpreted by the regime as a direct attempt by the West to undermine their rule - no surprise there) have shown that the pro-liberal Iranians are also a formidable factor, although being suppressed with brute force - for now.

( Read more... )

mahnmut.livejournal.com

Although uninvited, Iran insists to join the club of the nuclear powers. The recent weeks have increased the concerns about that. This is bound to cause a conflict of international proportions. IAEA doesn't rule out the possibility that Iran has renewed its military nuclear program, although Iran keeps claiming their only goal is the peaceful production of energy. The main players in this game are well known: Iran, Israel, the US. Partly China, Russia as well. The international sanctions have been tightened, and Iran responded by kicking out the UK ambassador.

Things started getting out of control when Iranian mobs attacked the UK embassy in Tehran, and UK was forced to close it and cut its relations with the ayatollahs. Meanwhile the US accused Iran of a conspiracy to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Add the captured US drone that fell on Iranian territory, and the ayatollahs' plans to sue 15 people on charges of espionage on behalf of USA and Israel, and the US plans to relocate some of their Iraqi forces to Kuwait; and the battlefield for geopolitical domination that is Syria... And you've got the picture.

( So what next for Iran? )

telemann.livejournal.com

Congress has just passed the New START Treaty minutes ago. 13 Republicans* broke rank with their leadership and joined Democrats in passing the first arms control treaty of this administration. the treaty will limit the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, nearly a 2/3 reduction since the original START treaty in 1991, and a 30 percent reduction since the 2002 Moscow Treaty. Currently, the Russian Federation has 2,787 nuclear warheads on 620 delivery vehicles, and the United States has 2,200 on 851 delivery vehicles (2009 figures). The treaty requires on ground inspections to insure compliance, and is seen by many as a critical component of keeping enriched uranium out of the hands of terrorists.

The treaty had the support of five previous secretaries of state, including Condoleezza Rice.

( Chart pron behind the cut! )

--------------------------------
* including: Lamar Alexander (TN), Judd Gregg (NH), Bob Corker (TN), Thad Cochran (MS), Johnny Isakson (GA), Dick Lugar (IN), Susan Collins (ME), Scott Brown (MA), Mike Johanns (NE), George Voinovich (OH), Olympia Snowe (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Bob Bennett (UT).

foxglovehp.livejournal.com

Well, this is certainly interesting. Not that I can say I am particularly heartbroken, or even terribly surprised. Stratfor has come to the conclusion that it was most likely a foreign power with inside help. That much is probably pretty obvious to most. So the question is: Which foreign power was it? For that matter, which internal group do you think helped? Do you think the foreign power was the lead in this or the internal element? Finally, how much of a setback to Iranian nuclear development do you think this is, and what is Iran likely to do about it?

green-man-2010.livejournal.com

Seeing as it's International Relations Week, here is another hot potato for you.

Ok , I have my own take on this, but it is contentious - so convert me!

I think that Britain should not replace Trident, the nuclear missile system , because the UK does not need it.
It isn't just that we can hide behind America and use theirs instead - I think we should give up using nukes altogether.

Ok - who is going to attack the UK?
Well, Argentina and Spain might. Argentina already has, in fact. But nuclear weapons did not deter agression. The resolute use of conventional force evicted the Argantine invaders from the Falklands, though, so Britain should keep conventional forces and abandon Trident, I say.

But what about the Russians, I hear some ask.
Well, if Russia wants to invade the UK, it isn't starting from th Berlin Wall anymore. That landmark is not even there. The reds have got to start from their own border, fight thru Poland, then half of Germany, just to get where they used to be - then carry on invading Europe to reach us. And have they got the means and the motive any more? I doubt it.
Korea? They have to invade China first.
China? Surely they don't have any ambition to invade Europe - they would be more interested in competition with Japan and other places in that side of the world.

So, I don't think any nation has got the means and the motivation to attack us. but what do you say?
Also, nuclear weapons produce the ingredients for the ' dirty bomb '- a decent option from a terrorist's POV.
Nuclear power produces a mere 4 % of our electricity, but 100% of our weapons grade plutonium.
I think we can safely do without nuclear power, and the nukes they produce.
What say you, O politically savvy community watchers?

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with nukes

So let's reassess

What's the size of the Iranian threat really?

Battlefield: Iran

New START Treaty ratified by Senate (71-26)

A Setback in Iranian Nuclear Development

Scrap Trident?

Credits & Style Info

Links

July 2025

Summary