Rotten Copper
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:26 pm



Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Obama's Atomic Umbrella 
Author Message
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1356
Reply with quote
Post Obama's Atomic Umbrella

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045687.html

Quote:
U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

But America's nuclear guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as a sign the U.S. believes Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms.
Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had raised the idea of a nuclear guarantee to Israel during her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. During a debate with Obama in April, Clinton said that Israel and Arab countries must be given "deterrent backing." She added, "Iran must know that an attack on Israel will draw a massive response."

Clinton also proposed that the American nuclear umbrella be extended to other countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, if they agree to relinquish their own nuclear ambitions.

According to the same source, the nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration took the first step by deploying an early-warning radar system in the Negev, which hones the ability to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.

Obama said this week that he would negotiate with Iran and would offer economic incentives for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program. He warned that if Iran refused the deal, he would act to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee essentially suggests the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. For its part, Israel opposes any such development and similar opposition was voiced by officials in the outgoing Bush administration.

"What is the significance of such guarantee when it comes from those who hesitated to deal with a non-nuclear Iran?" asked a senior Israeli security source. "What kind of credibility would this [guarantee have] when Iran is nuclear-capable?"

The same source noted that the fact that there is talk about the possibility of a nuclear Iran undermines efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring such arms.

A senior Bush administration source said that the proposal for an American nuclear umbrella for Israel was ridiculous and lacked credibility. "Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed? And what is the point of an American response, after Israel's cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?"

The current debate is taking place in light of the Military Intelligence assessment that Iran has passed beyond the point of no return, and has mastered the technology of uranium enrichment. The decision to proceed toward the development of nuclear arms is now purely a matter for Iran's leaders to decide. Intelligence assessments, however, suggest that the Iranians are trying to first accumulate larger quantities of fissile material, and this offers a window of opportunity for a last-ditch diplomatic effort to prevent an Iranian bomb.


All hail our new president. :worship:

(Change we can believe in)


Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:01 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

Nah, come on, for the last 60 + years, the U.S. military thinking has been based on Glenn Snyder's claim that defence and deterrence are two sides of the same coin.
Nevertheless, it's been just yesterday I've been reading through one article based on the discursive construction of weapons (especially nuclear) proliferation. Just take a look on how when 90% people talk/write about nukes proliferation, it's taken as a self-evident condition - just look for the dictionary - the term itself is taken from biology and basically refers to the process of cell reproduction that ends up in up to 10(13) cells from a single one. Therefore nukes are often seen not as a result of special political/economical conditions, but as something that everyone seeks to accumulate. If you take a close look on which countries have been attempting for nuclear (or WMD in general) programmes, it's basically been countries which were seeking to prevent "great power" intervention - such as apartheid South Africa, North Korea, (in part) Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran (well, we can consider the India/Pakistan parity, though that's a bit specific story - nevertheless, one could identify the political conditions over there), it's a bit different than purely "natural" [consider countries such as Japan or Germany which could get nukes, but never really intended to do so]. And I guess the U.S. army and the fat assed generals that live in their worlds of dangers [though, one could argue that this article pointed instead to the fact, that American policy is based on prevention of all the worst-case scenarios] is not a thing that can be changed by Mr. Obama so easily. And last, but not least, this ubrella was de facto already agreed upon during George W. Bush's second term and it rather shows what Robert Keohane years ago called path-dependency - simply if so much money and effort was designed to something (such as the SDI) and you come to the office, most probably you won't just stop that. The hope on Obama can be seen as a long-term, not short term and I don't believe he'd change everything. I just hope this guy'd have the guts to start strangling the american institutions, such as the WTO and the World Bank to re-regulate completely free international trade, since this was just a mere rhetoric how to make the global West richer (by allowing them to abide the rules) and the "third world" poorer (by pushing hard for this deregulation to be really implemented as an ideal liberal free trade policy).

So, notwithstanding what I wrote, what are your expectations about the Obama "change"?

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:23 am
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1356
Reply with quote
Post 

I wonder how true this article is:

http://news.antiwar.com/2008/12/10/outg ... e-on-iran/

If it is then what the hell is Obama trying to achieve? Even if Iran got nuclear weapons I would very much like actually diplomacy rather then threats.

If Obama would stick with his campaign promises I would expect a good president, but not an ideal one. Though I doubt he will do so, I guess we will have to wait and see, but I am worried.


Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:33 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

Interesting. Actually - as far as I remember - the type of uranium Iran is reported to produce is a problematic type that might be used for producing weapons. As well, Israel is quite overt on this case - but I guess it's kinda... apropriate (this is not to say morally justified) when having a neighbour country whose leader has officially spoken about the extermination of Israel as one of its priorities and at the same time might be producing fissile material that might be later pumped into nukes... just wondering - do you want to discuss this further? When it comes to diplomacy, take a look at this vid (not that I'd agree about everything, but it's nevertheless a sorte of an excellent lecture): http://fora.tv/2008/10/21/Geopolitical_Consequences_of_the_Credit_Crunch

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:03 am
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:13 pm
Posts: 494
Reply with quote
Post 

Kastrophee wrote:
I I would very much like actually diplomacy rather than threats.


Wouldn't we all like to see some diplomacy instead of threats of attack. I guess it's US foriegn policy to want to dictate terms on the field of victory instead of diplomacy. It's like it's some crusade, 'we the champions of good are here to save you from all the bad people and from yourselves'.
Anyway, did you really expect that much of a change? Too many people have lots of money invested in keeping things exactly the same as they've always been. Go against their wishes and you will dissapear.

As for the Iran and nuclear weapons thing: Uranium needs to be refined to a certain degree to be used for weapons. I belive to make uranium stable enough for nukes then the isotope U-235 needs to be enriched to around 90% from the 0.7205% of u-235 to be found within natural uranium and right now Iran just doesn't have the means to do this.


Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:19 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:28 am
Posts: 453
Location: New York, US
Reply with quote
Post 

"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

- Albert Einstein

_________________
SLUDGE/DOOM BAND
www.negativereaction.info

NYHC HARDCORE BAND
www.myspace.com/lacedjoint


Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:25 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1356
Reply with quote
Post 

Worm of Na'Ruq wrote:
Interesting. Actually - as far as I remember - the type of uranium Iran is reported to produce is a problematic type that might be used for producing weapons. As well, Israel is quite overt on this case - but I guess it's kinda... apropriate (this is not to say morally justified) when having a neighbour country whose leader has officially spoken about the extermination of Israel as one of its priorities and at the same time might be producing fissile material that might be later pumped into nukes... just wondering - do you want to discuss this further? When it comes to diplomacy, take a look at this vid (not that I'd agree about everything, but it's nevertheless a sorte of an excellent lecture): http://fora.tv/2008/10/21/Geopolitical_Consequences_of_the_Credit_Crunch


I admit, I am not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to world politics, what I do know is that threatening Iran with force to stop them from using force is not going to work like they want. To me it seems as if the US is actually trying to provoke violence.

How do you think the US would react if Israel decided to nuke Iran first? Though if Iran where to start it?

thx1138 wrote:
Anyway, did you really expect that much of a change? Too many people have lots of money invested in keeping things exactly the same as they've always been. Go against their wishes and you will dissapear.


Nope, never expected anything to change (For the better), but then I didn't vote for him (Nor Mccain).


Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:19 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

Kastrophee wrote:
I admit, I am not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to world politics, what I do know is that threatening Iran with force to stop them from using force is not going to work like they want. To me it seems as if the US is actually trying to provoke violence.

How do you think the US would react if Israel decided to nuke Iran first? Though if Iran where to start it?

Actually, this is one of the strangest things, but threatening Iran WILL work, at least to that extent that Iran wouldn't attack FIRST. At least, nukes are a very specific form of >language<. Once you've got nukes, you're socialized into a "noble club" where it is inappropriate to go for certain things. As well, there's this very sedimented doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) basically meaning neither Iran or Israel would attack first, minding the consequences (actually, some experts calculated that most probably Iran would go out of a nuclear war far worse than Israel - both because of geographical/topographical settings (basically, Israel ain't that flat [plus most probably they've got some hi-tech equipment such as patriot missiles that could serve as a slightly unreliable - but still umbrella] and Teheran is in this sense quite 'downhill', meaning that such a strike would end up in a sorte of of 'nuclear avalanche').
A far more appropriate question is whether relying on such strategic / calculative behavior is reliable enough. It is not and noone can't rely on whether either Israel or Iran won't strike. Nevertheless, the argument is that the current political situation over there doesn't show that both countries would seek the risk of playing with nukes, since what these seek is to deter the other from attack on them than really engage in destruction - or in different words - the fact that calculative behavior is not 100% certain, the more certain is that using (nuclear) warfare for no reason / no purpose would be likely.

When it comes to Thorax's point, just think of the U.S. military hawks. Imagine that you're really convinced in the superiority and moral justifiedness of your country (actually, there's quite a lot of popular literature that is stressing the perfection of democracy or market economy - and in the end most of us wouldn't dispute this to the very core) and consider that there are countries such as Iran, who simply don't seek to accept your vision of what's good. I think that a metaphor of a cop may not be such stupid in the praxis - simply if you find yourself as a policeman (hopefully you know get the point, Katastrophee, hehe) and someone next to you looks like not obeying to the rules which you find yourself authorized to protect, what'd you do - first use claims on your authority and then prepare yourself to start coercing the criminal going harder and harder from some attempts at neutralization to even threatening with the ise of the gun. Basically, that's what is being done around.

Perhaps you can criticize me that such views may sound naive, but that's not exactly what I was aiming to say - no matter how naive, human cognition and thinking is heavily based upon analogies and metaphors - we need to make reason out of the world around us and even being politicians, it is often difficult to criticize the conventional wisdoms. Indeed, politicians often decide much more upon the factual data than on images of the situation, but the point is that this data must be somehow sorted and the pictures must be simplified enough to make sense to humans. Just think that if your brain wouldn't have learnt to understand things as shapes, you'd just see around random floating spots of different colors that wouldn't make sense at all. Unless you're not able to compare things and simplify them enough, they don't make sense. And I'm pretty sure few of the politicians have time and effort to understand any new situation into detail and go to the edge of human possibilities in order to understand the things as they are in reality. Thus my convinction is that there are often simplistic logics that underlie what's happening and to an extent it really can be generalized into reality (though just in particular places) - and military strategies are quite one of the spaces where this happened to be working for a long time.

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:21 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:39 pm
Posts: 2972
Location: Malinas, Belgium
Reply with quote
Post 

Israel. hmmm can you imagine people moving into your country saying. 'We used to live here a while ago so move the f*ck over'...and you only have rocks in the streets and bombs...???

I don't mean this in an anti-semitistic way but I don't understand how they didn't see this conflict coming on from a long way off.
As for the US...a country that still does not recognize 'the universal declaration of human rights' and where every move is a military strategy..well they can't take to see the powers moving from the west to other regions and still they will try to save the world in the almighty name of god. Oh the terror of it all.

oh and I know this is probably mostly off topic.

_________________
Don't Panic


Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm
Profile WWW
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Reply with quote
Post 

Blizzard Beast wrote:
Israel. hmmm can you imagine people moving into your country saying. 'We used to live here a while ago so move the f*ck over'...and you only have rocks in the streets and bombs...???

I don't mean this in an anti-semitistic way but I don't understand how they didn't see this conflict coming on from a long way off.
As for the US...a country that still does not recognize 'the universal declaration of human rights' and where every move is a military strategy..well they can't take to see the powers moving from the west to other regions and still they will try to save the world in the almighty name of god. Oh the terror of it all.

oh and I know this is probably mostly off topic.

I actually think it's very on-topic. Umbrella or not-umbrella, we are simultaneously talking about regional/global super-powers positions. We are talking not about mere escalations of conflicts, but about militarization of topics. Just take the example of hurricane Katrina. Military forces were sent there and generally ended up shooting people who were looting shops and so, since these same people were starving.
I definitely do not support civilian or any forms of casualities and at the same time I feel sceptical about defining terrorism as a military threat. At the same time, the militarization is an excellent tool in order to blend between the terms 'military' and 'civilian', especially when used in contrast to 'terrorism', which does apparently not fit into neither of these. So we have Hamas as a result of militarizations of topics, result of the impact of numerous wars in the Middle-East on people's recognition of each other and now a very same "means" is being used against it. Indeed, I feel it's a fuckup. On the other hand, since the situation in Palestine / Gaza strip was desperate for dozens of years, I only hope that a military clean-up may set up a new environment for the reconstruction. Which will be a fuckup though.

_________________
Sonic terrorism is too important to be left to ideological amateurs.


Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:08 am
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:13 pm
Posts: 494
Reply with quote
Post 

Blizzard Beast wrote:
I don't mean this in an anti-semitistic way but I don't understand how they didn't see this conflict coming on from a long way off.


Oh I think they did see this conflict coming. What other reason could there have been for setting up a jewish state in such a place. "oh but we didn't realize that jews and muslims traditionally hate each other", yeah sure :p


Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:42 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:39 pm
Posts: 2972
Location: Malinas, Belgium
Reply with quote
Post 

thx1138 wrote:
Blizzard Beast wrote:
I don't mean this in an anti-semitistic way but I don't understand how they didn't see this conflict coming on from a long way off.


Oh I think they did see this conflict coming. What other reason could there have been for setting up a jewish state in such a place. "oh but we didn't realize that jews and muslims traditionally hate each other", yeah sure :p


Of course, I realize they must of seen the consequences. I was making it look ridiculous.

On a wider scale, it is an example how the three big religions (christrian, judaism and islam) work. They claim to own the truth which came from a transcendental world. Blinded by their truth they will differ from the rest and makes everything that's different into an enemy...That's problem these days in the world; everybody pointing at differences. An ideal settings for another world war, if you'd ask me...

_________________
Don't Panic


Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:25 pm
Profile WWW
Forum User

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:13 pm
Posts: 494
Reply with quote
Post 

Obama madness, he hasn't done anything at all yet but according to the media he can fly, has x-ray vision, shits laser beams and his only weakness is kryptonite...........


Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:20 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:02 pm
Posts: 1356
Reply with quote
Post 

Praise Obama, he's God's second son! :worship:


Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:57 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:56 pm
Posts: 317
Location: Arizona
Reply with quote
Post 

americans are really, really dumb. i am embarrassed for all americans and sorry for all decent americans who can't be bought with clever oration and avoidance of truths.

_________________
funn! O)))


Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:19 am
Profile WWW
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:18 pm
Posts: 641
Location: North west UK
Reply with quote
Post 

But hes black so that means EVERYTHING is going to be ok now, cos every black person on TV is saying so.


Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:29 am
Profile WWW
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:16 pm
Posts: 706
Reply with quote
Post 

He's not really black though. He's a 'half-a-brotha!'

Barrack hussein obama christ!

_________________
Get off my case motherfucker!


www.myspace.com/portentuk


Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:48 am
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:13 pm
Posts: 494
Reply with quote
Post 

Still, at least america now has a president that can actually deliver a speech properly.


Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:32 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:25 pm
Posts: 145
Reply with quote
Post 

Blizzard Beast wrote:
thx1138 wrote:
Blizzard Beast wrote:
I don't mean this in an anti-semitistic way but I don't understand how they didn't see this conflict coming on from a long way off.


Oh I think they did see this conflict coming. What other reason could there have been for setting up a jewish state in such a place. "oh but we didn't realize that jews and muslims traditionally hate each other", yeah sure :p


Of course, I realize they must of seen the consequences. I was making it look ridiculous.

On a wider scale, it is an example how the three big religions (christrian, judaism and islam) work. They claim to own the truth which came from a transcendental world. Blinded by their truth they will differ from the rest and makes everything that's different into an enemy...That's problem these days in the world; everybody pointing at differences. An ideal settings for another world war, if you'd ask me...

You can blame Isiah for the idea of exclusive monotheism... A world without religion is so utopian but at the same time, wouldn't it just be better? Or if religion took a smaller place in those peoples hearts.

Threatening Iran like this isn't a very good idea. To me it just leads to more militarization which is never a good thing. Plus there's the rise of nationalism in two of the world's super powers (Russia and the USA) and if history has taught us one thing: nationalism and militarization together are a very dangerous combination.


Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Profile
Forum User

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 11:56 pm
Posts: 317
Location: Arizona
Reply with quote
Post 

thx1138 wrote:
Still, at least america now has a president that can actually deliver a speech properly.


i hate to be the dude that brings the dude up, but hitler was an excellent orator, and a real asshole. i am not comparing obama to hitler, but speech delivery doesn't indicate skill in public office or human decency or anything like that. also, obama hates jews and blacks. bush was a huge asshole, but i would honestly prefer jackass cowboy nonsense and made up words to obvious catch-phrase mass psychosis.

_________________
funn! O)))


Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:26 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.