Syria and North Korea are a bit of a clusterfuck, as is Pakistan.
I wouldn’t worry about Argentina. That’s just saber rattling to try and cover up an economy on the downswing. If they couldn’t beat the Brits in the 80s, they certainly can’t do it now.
I’m also not very concerned about China. Aside from the fact that it’s a huge paper tiger (see The Closer’s many posts in the economy thread about China’s unstable housing market), China, historically–even when it was ascendant while the rest of the West was potato farming in the dark–has never really cared about the world outside its borders. The mainland may want Taiwan back, but that’s about it.
Agree about China. Pakistan is a tinderbox. I am really hoping we get some kind of break in that region because it feel like check mate all the time. I feel like North Korea could go either way – it’s hard to know whether Junior Kim will be better, worse or the same.
North Korea is absolutely insane but also incredibly poor and, for all their military posturing, harmless. If they ever try shit, they’re the ones who’ll be hurt. Mostly the peasants, as usual.
When Europe financially implodes and Chinas house of cards is lain bare, when America finally accepts it is not in slump but in decline, when the oil begins to run scarce and the powers of the world circle their wagons…
…guys, a few tinpot backyard dictators will be the least of our worries this decade.
Just found this, pretty appropriate article really…
There’s a lot to be freaked out about. I feel like, you can’t attach to it too much or you’ll drive yourself mad. You have to just keep doing what you can, being as active and aware as you can, and hope for the best. And cute baby bats help.
Something feels different about the Iranian situation this time, like it’s to hawkish for a democratic president in an election year.
Plus the IAEA report that Iran is for sure, working on a bomb, Iranian military and industrial sites mysteriously blowing up, the new sanctions, it’s all building blocks to war stuff.
But! Baby bats! Awwwww.
and yt, please tell me the kitten in your avatar was scooped up, and loved, and never went hungry again.
I’m more worried about Israel thinking it can act with impunity while presidential candidates in the US spend this year falling over each other trying to look like Israels biggest supporter.
The Israelis know they can’t win a war against Iran or survive if they try an airstrike. Iran learned from Iraq. It’s nuclear facilities are too spread out and hidden for Israel to reach them. Plus, I don’t think Israeli jets/bombers can reach Iran without refueling on the way back (Israel can’t refuel midair). I doubt we’d provide support.
That’s why Israel will try to get the US to bomb Iran, but I don’t think we’re that stupid. Even if Romney is elected president, which I doubt (I still think Obama’s got this, especially if unemployment dips below 8%), the military will recommend against it. We can’t win a war against Iran without going nuclear. What you hear is a bunch of red meat for the primaries.
Doesn’t Israel have the second most advanced military in the world thanks to their hyperpowered benefactor? I doubt there’s anything US forces couldn’t do techologically that they haven’t shared with their Zionist pals.
I stand corrected. I remember reading a Sy Hersh article a couple of years back about this saying that Israeli jets couldn’t refuel midair. Maybe it’s because they’d be in hot pursuit the whole time, as no Arab country would let them fly over to bomb Iran? Can’t really refuel midair if Iraq or Jordan is scrambling jets to escort you out of its airspace.
I think Israel’s problem is more of a scale issue, not a technological one. A mission like this would be complicated for the US to pull off correctly.
Can I ask: why is Iran getting a nuke a bad thing? Wasn’t MAD what saved us all in the cold war? I think it would do certain countries some good to know that they no longer had an unlimited license to bully their neighbors, since those neighbors now would have friends of their own armed with nuclear weapons
There is too much oil money ETC in Iran for them to risk giving a bomb to terrorists, it seems to me. That sort of plot would be utterly suicidal for the nation as a whole
There is only one country in the world whose leaders talk openly about using the atom bomb on their enemies, and that would be Israel. The fact they have 170 nukes seems like a bigger threat to me than Iran getting one or two. In fact, I’d feel less worried about Israel’s WMD stockpiles if I knew that they’d no longer be able to threaten nuclear holocaust without having to worry about the favor getting returned
MAD worked because, in theory, all actors with nukes were rational actors. Mutually assured destruction cows rational actors into forgoing the use of nuclear weapons against other actors with nuclear weapons. In fact, it’s supposed to cow rational actors into not attacking other actors with nuclear weapons at all, for fear of escalating a spat into a full blown nuclear war.
The thinking goes that Iran isn’t a rational actor (Islamic theocracy, etc.), and thus wouldn’t be constrained by MAD. Others believe that acquiring a nuclear weapon makes the regime more rational, since nuclear reprisal is now in the cards. Pakistan and North Korea, however, haven’t been moderated in the least since acquiring nuclear weapons.
The bigger issue is proliferation. We want to rid the world of nukes, not have every country armed with them. Even assuming Iran would “behave” better if it had a nuclear weapon, there’s no assurance that Iran’s command and control systems are sufficiently secure to prevent accidental or unauthorized launches or the loss of a weapon to a non-state actor like Al Qaeda (for the sake of example. If anything, the nuke would be given to Hezbollah, the shia group).
That’s the root of the problem. There’s also the Republican fear of brown people with technology, but let’s put that aside.
Israel is a “rational actor,” for what it’s worth (again, according to traditional International Relations theory). Plus, the US has enough pull with Israel to prevent a nuclear launch. Israel almost launched nukes during the Yom Kippur War, but Kissinger was able to talk them out of it (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/opinio…oment.html)
Pakistan and North Korea are really just entirely different situations. Not all countries fit in the same box. Noth Korea doesn’t act rationally because they’re crazy poor and lead by a person who was literally crazy
Pakistan has that whole Pakistan/India Muslim hindu history, and is also poor
Iran is well off, not very ethnically diverse, and generally, though there is a desire for change coming from the young, isn’t in danger of all out tribal civil war like in Pakistan
I agree we should be trying to get rid of nukes, however, is it wothk it to pursue that goal above all else if it means backing Israel - yet again - on their quest to be an unopposed apartheid power, to the extent we would go into an unnecessary war? Because I do believe Iran would act rationally with a nuke, and for a time it would probably cause Israel to act more diplomatically, perhaps giving peace a legitimate chance to spring up
Then, when things cooled back down, we could get Israel to admit its nuke ownership in the light of day, and get everyone to disarm
Because once peak oil hits, as rain dog talks about, and the wars over water and oil and food begin, I wouldn’t want Israel with their oodles of nukes to be unconcerned about nuclear retaliation were they to use them against their enemies