Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • The likely consequences of letting Iran get nukes

    Posted by ken on September 24th, 2004 (All posts by )

    They probably won’t set off a nuke in Manhattan, or “lose” one of their nukes to their terrorist subsidiaries, at least unless they’ve got a really surefire way to get away with it.

    But observe that they are already backing at least part of the “insurgency” bedeviling Iraq. If they go hog-wild, we can always muster support for an invasion – for now – so there’s limits to what they can do there.

    But with a nuke, they’ve suddenly invasion-proofed themselves. Like the Pakistanis, the Chinese, and the Russians, they’ll either get nuked or scolded and/or embargoed, but almost certainly nothing in between.

    All of a sudden, the limits to their insurgency-backing activities in Iraq are gone. We’re going to enter a nuclear exchange because they’re vigorously backing insurgents? Not bloody likely.

    So what we end up with is a proxy war against another nuclear armed power. We don’t have the option to take the fight to the backers no matter how much they escalate the situation, because they’ve got nukes. So we’re stuck blasting away at their agents (who quickly get replaced by the backer) and taking significant numbers of casualties in return for years on end, making life awfully rough for the locals in the meantime, until one side finally runs out of patience and throws in the towel. If it’s us that throws in the towel, then life gets really rough for the locals and our reputation goes in the toilet.

    That sounds awfully familiar. Didn’t John Kerry make a passing reference to the time he was in that situation a few decades back? As I recall, it didn’t turn out too well last time around…

     

    7 Responses to “The likely consequences of letting Iran get nukes”

    1. Pato Says:

      a nonsensical post.
      at any time the US can exhaust iran to military pieces in the sand with a simple 21 day rain of hell fire, no nukes even needed.
      it’ll happen this way.

    2. JosephMendiola Says:

      The immediate danger of Iran dev nukes is that Radical Islamism and International Terror orgs will ultimately have their own sole-source for nuclear weapons. Mullah-controlled IRAN is like NORTH KOREA is likely having Cold War-style quick access to nuclear tech from States/Govts. with an anti-American agenda – unnlike NK, Iran doesn’t have China or Russia to boss it around! The Norkies know China will never allow any Communist sub-state like North Korea to challenge its own ambitions of eventual China-centric hegemony in East Asia, NO MATTER THE PC RHETORIC TO THE CONTRARY, AND NO MATTER WHETHER CHINA IS ON ITS SIDE OR AMERICA’S ala the NK crisis. North Korea has only two realistic options – to remain a permanent Commie substate and minor world state; or else improve its lot with still-COMMUNISM-CENTRIC Russia and China by helping to destabilize and subvert America and ultim the Western democracies unto anti-sovereign SOCIALISM under OWG, i.e. COMMUNISM! IRAN AND NK ARE NOTHING MORE THAN GEOPOLITICAL SACRIFICIAL CANNON FODDER AND PC/DENIABLE DIVERSIONS FROM THE REAL THREAT TO AMERICA – THE COMMUNIST AND ANTI-AMERICAN AMERICAN CLINTONS AND INVISIBLE/CREEPING/
      GRADUALIST REGULATORY/COMMAND SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM! AN AMERICA UNDER INTERNATIONAL AND GLOBAL SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM SHOULD BE MEANINGLESS OR TRIVIAL TO A CLINTON-PREMISED AMERICA WHOSE MAINSTREAM IS ALREADY COMMUNIST AND SOCIALIST, OR MAJORITY PRO-COMMIE AND PRO-SOCIE, AND TO WHOSE LEADERS ALLEGEDLY ENTER OFFICE VIA ELECTION FRAUD, AS BILL CLINTON ADMITS HE HIMSELF DID FOR 1992 AND 1996! If the Failed Left and US DemLibs don’t get it by now that their champion Bill Clinton is as very much their enemy as he is to the GOP-Right and AMERICA, that Billary is for Communism, a Communist America, and a Communist world order ruled from Russia-China, THEY NEVER WILL UNTO THEIR OWN AND AMERICA’S PATHETIC DESTRUCTION – THEY’RE HELPING THE CLINTONS KILL AMERICA FOR NOTHING!

    3. Ralf Goergens Says:

      If Iran is invaded the Mullahs will blow up the pipelines. And if the nuclear facilities are bombed they’ll at the very least stop oil exports. That makes me wonder if Bush is really condiering taking ther country on.

    4. dick Says:

      Seems to me that the question should be what are we going to do if they do get the nukes. France and Germany sat down to tea with the Iranians and ended up pledging to get some “peaceful” supplies of fissionable material for them. Is that really the approach we want to take? Give them more material than they already have and hope that they will then not make bombs? That seems to be what our Euro buddies are doing. Seems to me like the snake who got the turtle to take him across the river. Still a snake and will bite. We will end up with another Oil for Food tpe scenario and we should know how that worked through the UN. Seems like about time to hand the Israelis some missiles and tell them sic ’em. Worked the last time.

    5. Jonathan Says:

      The point about how Iranian nukes would complicate our response to Iranian subversion in Iraq is reasonable. However, what about Israel? I don’t think Israel can afford not to do something about the incipient Iranian nuclear capability. It’s mainly a question of whether the U.S. wil act first. Otherwise it’s a question of timing.

    6. Ralf Goergens Says:

      dick,

      it’s not just France and Germany, Britain is sittinmg down with Iran, too.

    7. TM Lutas Says:

      Standard HEU for peaceful use is 3%-5% U-235. Iranians have been caught making 36% U-235 enrichment. Weapons level is at least 80% and more like 90%+ U-235.

      I find it much more likely that Iranian security gets tired of beating and killing its own people and being shouldered aside by foreigners who are even more brutal with the people. A Gen. Musharraf scenario is the most likely way out for Iran.