|
Raenir Salazar posted:Well it kind of seemed like from the previous post that McNally was suggesting we stop but alright. Oh, sorry, no. I don't like DR so I was genuinely encouraging you to slap him down hard.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
McNally posted:Oh, sorry, no. I don't like DR so I was genuinely encouraging you to slap him down hard. Gotcha! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:-The Trump Administration just recently approved the sale of nuclear technology to the KSA so that isn't true that the US hasn't sold nuclear weapons tech. As I mentioned earlier, there is a difference between "nuclear" and "nuclear weapons". There is certainly the concern of end use shenanigans, which indeed is one of the problems in the JCPOA. But the US has definitely not sold nuclear weapons technology to KSA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:As I mentioned earlier, there is a difference between "nuclear" and "nuclear weapons". There is certainly the concern of end use shenanigans, which indeed is one of the problems in the JCPOA. But the US has definitely not sold nuclear weapons technology to KSA. Here's the issue though, DR made no such allowance or distinction for Iran, so why should it be given for KSA? Insofar as the argument seems to be they are bad countries that do bad things, KSA is a much badder country doing badderer things, everything should be even under more scrutiny then Iran.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
The main logic I don't understand is how our backing out of the nuclear agreement with Iran prevents them from going ahead and building a nuclear weapon in a way the agreement didn't. Like, if the problem was Iran being 95% of the way to building a bomb under the agreement, what stops them from being 95% of the way to building a bomb now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:The main logic I don't understand is how our backing out of the nuclear agreement with Iran prevents them from going ahead and building a nuclear weapon in a way the agreement didn't. Like, if the problem was Iran being 95% of the way to building a bomb under the agreement, what stops them from being 95% of the way to building a bomb now? According to John Bolton, we just bomb everything remotely nuclear and bam, no more bomb. Sane people might realize there are a few flaws with that plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I understand and agree it is desirable and preferable to maintain the NPT but so far every nation that's acquired nuclear weapons has seem to have gotten more stable. Here's Stuart Slade's (Ugh!) take; he's a former Nuke Analyst and Mediocre Scifi author. I don't remember where I first heard this quote, but to paraphrase: "I'm not too worried about the guy who wants 1,000 nukes, I'm worried about the guy who only wants 1." I was 15 at the time but I remember people fretting about Pakistan getting the bomb (with good reason). Turns out the main issue they've had since then is just poor control over proliferation, since India and Pakistan still aren't exactly best friends, yet they've managed to not blow each other up to this day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Here's the issue though, DR made no such allowance or distinction for Iran, so why should it be given for KSA? Insofar as the argument seems to be they are bad countries that do bad things, KSA is a much badder country doing badderer things, everything should be even under more scrutiny then Iran. From a grossly realpolitik standpoint, KSA is more or less willing to sit under the US defense umbrella and generally kinda-sorta act in ways that might be considered allies of convenience if you squint hard enough. They have shown little interest or effort in becoming a nuclear weapons state. They may dismantle the occasional journalist with a hacksaw, but by the standards of the region you take what you can get. That's the theory, anyway. That said, I have personally been in favor of telling them to do anatomically improbable things to themselves since 9/12/01.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Here's the issue though, DR made no such allowance or distinction for Iran, so why should it be given for KSA? Because they play by our (America's) rules for the most part. It may be a thuggish autocratic regime, but they have been consistently willing to more or less do as they're told for over half a century now. The US likes to posture about human rights and all that but when it comes down to it, our perceived political and strategic interests far outweigh any human rights concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Because they play by our (America's) rules for the most part. It may be a thuggish autocratic regime, but they have been consistently willing to more or less do as they're told for over half a century now. I mean, sort of? It seems like they've become a lot less of a stabilizing force than they used to be in the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The US likes to posture about human rights and all that but when it comes down to it, our perceived political and strategic interests far outweigh any human rights concerns. I mean, imho, with Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain*, the government kind of lost its high horse on human rights *in which the Supreme Court said the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was just words, and that declaring your country believes in something and then not making it law isn't at all incongruous
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I mean, imho, with Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain*, the government kind of lost its high horse on human rights That's a bit much. The guy was tried, acquitted, and released. That he wasn't allowed to sue - after being allowed to take his case to the Supreme Court - isn't exactly My Lai. Particularly given the nontrivial constitutional issues involved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Because they play by our (America's) rules for the most part. It may be a thuggish autocratic regime, but they have been consistently willing to more or less do as they're told for over half a century now. The problem to me is that they're nuclear weapons ambitions appear to be based on contingency; not on principle or on the desires of the US; to me this seems basically indistinguishable in terms of intent from Iran; Iran only wants nuclear weapons insofar as it protects them from the US; KSA wants them only so far as it protects them from Iran; there isn't a whole lot of daylight between these two but we seem to accept at face value that if we ask pretty please KSA won't pursue them but not Iran because of preconceived biases. Iran is a more liberal state than the KSA, from the outsider position they should be the US partners in the region not the KSA. At least they at one point did have a liberal democracy, KSA never has.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
Interesting development. https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0803_story.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
wkarma posted:Interesting development. If true, this probably burned a lot of techniques/0 day exploits they might have had saved for that purpose. However we don't know if it is true or how substantial, might just have DDoS'd some random servers who can know or say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:If true, this probably burned a lot of techniques/0 day exploits they might have had saved for that purpose. <Iranian missile tech plugs a random USB drive he found on the ground into his SAM unit because it said "porn" on it>
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
Want to know why you never hear about who Israel is cyberattacking? Because they loving keep quiet about it. ...for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
Yeah whoever in the administration leaked this poo poo is causing actual damage to natsec just to make daddy trump not look so limp dicked
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
Saying that this administration leaks like a sieve is unfair to sieves. Sieves do their jobs and don’t let absolutely everything out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 09:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If by "your" you mean the US government in general, they are a cheap & stable flow of petrochemical resources, and free & unrestricted passage of military and merchant vessels through the Persian Gulf. There is only one country that is actively pursuing a blockade policy in the Persian Gulf, and it's the USA against Iran. Iran's threats to block traffic isn't a "do what I say or else your trade gets it!" blackmail, it's a "if you take me down I'm taking you fuckers with me" deterrent. Dead Reckoning posted:LMAO. First off, we haven't given any weapons tech to the Saudis, and we don't really need to: they've essentially admitted that they have a cash-and-carry relationship with Pakistan for warheads in the event that Iran goes nuclear. If you think it's really about civilian energy, Saudi Arabia is made of 99% of empty desert where the sun shines relentlessly. They could put gigantic solar panel farms. They want nuclear. Dead Reckoning posted:Second, the Iranian regime was pursuing nuclear weapons about a decade before Donald Trump was measuring 1600 Pennsylvania for his gold curtains Yeah, yeah, the "any day now" alarmist oped about Iran's nuke weapons have been going on since the 1980s. Yet they still don't have nukes. The Manhattan Project took four years and was blazing a new trail. The science is well known now. Depending on resources available and level of secrecy maintained, other nuclear countries took more or less time, but generally from start of program to first nuke test there was less than ten years. So, why doesn't Iran have nukes now?
Dead Reckoning posted:after watching what happened to Iraq vs North Korea, they know that their best chance for avoiding Tomahawk bukkake when they do is to have The Bomb. 1. Their diplomacy is hollow and cannot be trusted because: 2. They pathologically hate Iran to the point that "I'll renege on a treaty with Iran" is a winning presidential campaign slogan, and: 3. Nuclear weapons are the only way to keep them at bay and avoid war then Iran's stance on nuclear weapon has to be revised. This is entirely the USA's fault, and specifically Donald J. Trump's fault in this case. Dead Reckoning posted:Ah yes, the extremely valid viewpoint of the Kim regime that they should maintain their position leading one of the worst governments on the planet. I didn't know that's how we were framing the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 09:48
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:That's a bit much. The guy was tried, acquitted, and released. That he wasn't allowed to sue - after being allowed to take his case to the Supreme Court - isn't exactly My Lai. Particularly given the nontrivial constitutional issues involved. I didn't equate it to My Lai. I didn't say it was large scale warcrimes. I said the Supreme court had a chance to be clear that fuckery around human rights wasn't tolerated. They did the opposite. "Oh we kidnapped you in another country? Maybe you should take that up with the other country then, doesn't sound like it involves us"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 10:03
|
|
|
You know how every now and then you hear or read a word or phrase and you hate it, and you never knew it existed before or that you hated it? tomahawk bukkake
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The US likes to posture about human rights and all that but when it comes down to it, our perceived political and strategic interests far outweigh any human rights concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 12:51
|
|
|
Why do American politicians have such an obsession with Iran?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
We held a 50 year grudge against Cuba long past the point they had any relevance while actively working with worse regimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 13:36
|
|
|
Also yes I know Fidel wasn't just a grumpy old man and the Cuban voting block is influential. I'm just saying Iran is hardly novel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The problem to me is that they're nuclear weapons ambitions appear to be based on contingency; not on principle or on the desires of the US; to me this seems basically indistinguishable in terms of intent from Iran; Iran only wants nuclear weapons insofar as it protects them from the US; KSA wants them only so far as it protects them from Iran; there isn't a whole lot of daylight between these two but we seem to accept at face value that if we ask pretty please KSA won't pursue them but not Iran because of preconceived biases. I mean, you're not wrong, but none of this matters much to the State Department. It might be logically inconsistent, but governments offering favorable treatment to other countries that they deem friendly or cooperative is a pretty standard thing in politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
Not clear whether it’s true or not that this is viral in Iran, but interesting if true. https://twitter.com/negarmortazavi/status/1142533578313666562?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Why do American politicians have such an obsession with Iran? That embassy thing did start us on a bad note. Of course it's hard to find a way to say this without coming across like a nut, but there is also a widespread perception among people who like and support Israel that Iran is a unique and immediate threat to their survival. I like and support Israel, but I do not have that perception and certainly don't think it's worth the torrents of blood that would be spilled in a US/Iran war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:That embassy thing did start us on a bad note. Precisely this - The religious fundamentalists, which make up a huge portion of the major voting blocks in this country, literally think Israel is the most important place on earth. They also think Armageddon is near. Sigh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Alaan posted:We held a 50 year grudge against Cuba long past the point they had any relevance while actively working with worse regimes. Held? Past tense? Earlier this month the administration announced new travel restrictions to Cuba (e.g. you can't go to Cuba) because Cuba is communist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Well we briefly were changing course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:That embassy thing did start us on a bad note. It is absolutely is not. It's their last regional rival in the region. You can tell how outta wack this view is if you consider what their nightmare scenario actually is: Iran getting nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles - like Israel already has, so Israel might be caught in a cold war type situation - which would restrict their actions internationally in certain ways. In other words, what the cold war was for America and the USSR, which although BAD, is not the same thing as treating Iran as having nearly completed Mecha-Saladin
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
I will say I can understand Israeli fears of Iranian nukes on the grounds that it might not be a sanctioned attack but that a small nuke/dirty bomb might slip through the cracks to some extreme Hamas sect and be used on some Israeli settlement. Basically an escalation of the regular rocket attacks and such. Now this absolutely 100% isn’t worth a war with Iran over but I do see the rationality there because it’s not a long pipeline. Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jun 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I will say I can understand Israeli fears of Iranian nukes on the grounds that it might not be a sanctioned attack but that a small nuke/dirty bomb might slip through the cracks to some extreme Hamas sect and be used on some Israeli settlement. Basically an escalation of the regular rocket attacks and such. But nothing that anyone does could prevent such a weapon from coming out of Iran. Hell, one of the naturally most radioactive places on earth is in Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran#Radioactivity Iran's natural uranium reserves are relatively modest but more than enough for a bomb ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves ). If they wanted to throw together a dirty bomb they could and nothing could be done to stop them other than destroying all technology past that of the 1930s. This is probably what Bolton wants but I doubt anyone else (Nethanyahu?) thinks its a logical or realizable plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But nothing that anyone does could prevent such a weapon from coming out of Iran. Hell, one of the naturally most radioactive places on earth is in Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran#Radioactivity I guess my point is more when they are actively producing weapons that the risk one disappears gets higher, but you are correct that there’s not really poo poo we’re gonna do on that front.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
The idea that Iran would let Hamas steal a nuke is absurd, since everyone knows that Iran would be the first suspect, and that Israel wouldn't even bother doing an investigation before retaliating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
EDIT: nm, this isn't D+D and I don't want it to be
Mazz fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jun 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
*posts nuclear stabilization hot take here * I highly recommend reading the twilight war next time you're on a plane or have some time if you havent. Fantastic primer on US Iranian relations
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 07:12 |
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Want to know why you never hear about who Israel is cyberattacking? Because they loving keep quiet about it. thesurlyspringKAA posted:Yeah whoever in the administration leaked this poo poo is causing actual damage to natsec just to make daddy trump not look so limp dicked Platystemon posted:Saying that this administration leaks like a sieve is unfair to sieves. Disclaimer: I know nothing whatsoever about the truth or falsehood of any of this. However, there are many times when the point of a special action is for it to be publicly known. You don't say it from a podium because it's deliberately intended to be in the fuzzy gray area between "diplomacy" and "war". But you let approved people tell approved outlets. Whether this administration is leakier than others about stuff that really was supposed to stay quiet is difficult to say, not least of which because so much is leaked by political opponents in the administration. Cf. the ICE raids that were to happen this weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 23:16
|
|